Millar and Oakley

In the matter of *Millar and Oakley*, heard before Cronin J, the dispute concerned an application for leave to appeal against a decision of the Registrar. The applicants sought to challenge the Registrar's refusal to grant them leave to appeal against an earlier decision made by a Deputy Registrar.

The central legal issue before Cronin J was whether the applicants had demonstrated sufficient grounds to be granted leave to appeal the Registrar's decision. This required the court to consider the principles governing the grant of leave to appeal, particularly in circumstances where a prior application for leave had already been refused.

Cronin J applied the principles established in *House v The King* and *Australian Coal and Shale Employees' Federation v The Commonwealth*, which dictate that leave to appeal should only be granted in exceptional circumstances. His Honour found that the applicants had failed to establish any error of law or fact in the Registrar's decision, nor had they demonstrated any compelling reason why the appeal should be heard. The applicants' arguments were found to be without merit and did not meet the threshold for granting leave.

Consequently, Cronin J dismissed the application for leave to appeal.