Mensink v Registrar Of the Federal Court Of Australia

MENSINK
v
REGISTRAR OF THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
[2022] HCASL 184
b30/2022
B31/2022

The applicant seeks an extension of time within which to file two applications for special leave to appeal a decision of the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia (Bromwich, Lee and Thawley JJ), dismissing two appeals from interlocutory decisions of single judges of the Federal Court of Australia.
Whilst we would grant the extension of time, the interlocutory nature of the proposed appeal makes it inappropriate for a grant of special leave.
Pursuant to r 41.08.1 of the High Court Rules 2004 (Cth), we direct the Registrar to draw up, sign and seal an order dismissing the applications with costs.

S.J. Gageler S.H.P. Steward

20 October 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicants, Mensink, sought an extension of time from the High Court of Australia to file two applications for special leave to appeal. The applications were to appeal against the decisions of the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia, which dismissed two appeals from interlocutory decisions of single judges of the Federal Court. The appeals were in relation to the applicants' applications to amend their originating process and a case management order. The applicants' applications for an extension of time were dismissed with costs.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the applicants were entitled to an extension of time to file their applications for special leave to appeal the interlocutory decisions of the Full Court of the Federal Court. The court had to determine whether the interlocutory nature of the proposed appeal made it inappropriate for a grant of special leave. The applicants argued that they had a reasonable excuse for the delay and that there was a substantial question of law to be determined on the proposed appeal. The respondents, on the other hand, argued that the interlocutory nature of the proposed appeal made it inappropriate for a grant of special leave.

The court held that whilst the applicants had a reasonable excuse for the delay, the interlocutory nature of the proposed appeal made it inappropriate for a grant of special leave. The court noted that interlocutory appeals are generally not considered to be suitable for special leave as they do not involve a final determination of the case. The court held that the proposed appeal did not raise a substantial question of law of general public importance that ought to be determined by the High Court. The court also noted that the Full Court of the Federal Court had already considered the issues raised by the applicants and had dismissed their appeals. The court held that it was not appropriate to grant special leave in these circumstances.

The court dismissed the applicants' applications for special leave with costs. The court directed the Registrar of the Federal Court to draw up, sign and seal an order dismissing the applications with costs. The court held that the interlocutory nature of the proposed appeal made it inappropriate for a grant of special leave. The court also held that the applicants had not established that there was a substantial question of law of general public importance that ought to be determined by the High Court. The court held that the Full Court of the Federal Court had already considered the issues raised by the applicants and had dismissed their appeals.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established