MILLER
v
MARTIN & ORS
MILLER
v
MARTIN & ORS
[2019] HCASL 341
M92/2019
M93/2019
The applications for special leave do not raise any doubt as to the correctness of the decision of the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Victoria. Hence, it would be futile to grant the extensions of time that are sought. Special leave should be refused.
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.
V.M Bell S.J Gageler 17 October 2019
Details
- AGLC
- Miller v Martin & Ors Miller v Martin [2019] HCASL 341
- Case
- [2019] HCASL 341
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the case of Miller v Martin, the applicants sought special leave to appeal from the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Victoria. The nature of the dispute was not detailed in the text provided, but it is clear that the applicants were seeking an extension of time to appeal the decision of the Court of Appeal. The respondents to the application were Martin and others.
The legal issues that the court was required to decide were whether the applications for special leave raised any doubt as to the correctness of the decision of the Court of Appeal, and whether it would be futile to grant the extensions of time that were sought. The court also had to decide whether special leave should be granted or refused.
The court held that the applications for special leave did not raise any doubt as to the correctness of the decision of the Court of Appeal. The court found that it would be futile to grant the extensions of time that were sought. As a result, the court refused the applications for special leave. The court also directed the Registrar to draw up, sign and seal an order dismissing the applications.
Overall, the court found that the applicants had not satisfied the criteria for special leave, and that there was no justification for the extensions of time that were sought. The decision of the Court of Appeal was upheld, and the applicants' appeal was dismissed.
The legal issues that the court was required to decide were whether the applications for special leave raised any doubt as to the correctness of the decision of the Court of Appeal, and whether it would be futile to grant the extensions of time that were sought. The court also had to decide whether special leave should be granted or refused.
The court held that the applications for special leave did not raise any doubt as to the correctness of the decision of the Court of Appeal. The court found that it would be futile to grant the extensions of time that were sought. As a result, the court refused the applications for special leave. The court also directed the Registrar to draw up, sign and seal an order dismissing the applications.
Overall, the court found that the applicants had not satisfied the criteria for special leave, and that there was no justification for the extensions of time that were sought. The decision of the Court of Appeal was upheld, and the applicants' appeal was dismissed.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.