Mofeed Louis Tanious v Georges River Council

Link copied
Case Copied 1 min read

MOFEED LOUIS TANIOUS

v.

GEORGES RIVER COUNCIL

[2017] HCASL 290
S229/2017

  1. This application gives rise to no question of principle which would warrant the grant of special leave to appeal.  In any event, the proposed appeal does not enjoy sufficient prospects of success to warrant a grant of special leave.  The application should be dismissed.

  2. 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 application.

P.A. Keane
16 November 2017 		J.J. Edelman
CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Mofeed Louis Tanious v Georges River Council and more:

  • Read every judgment in full
  • Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
  • See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
  • Download judgments as PDF or Word
Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details
Case
[2017] HCASL 290
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Mofeed Louis Tanious applied to the High Court for special leave to appeal against the Supreme Court of New South Wales' dismissal of his case against Georges River Council. The applicant alleged that the council had breached his privacy and breached the Privacy Act 1988 by disclosing his personal information. The High Court considered the application for special leave to appeal, focusing on whether the appeal raised any novel or significant questions of law that warranted the court's intervention. The court also assessed whether the appeal had sufficient prospects of success to warrant the grant of special leave. The High Court found that the appeal did not raise any new or significant questions of law that would warrant the court's intervention, and that the appeal did not have sufficient prospects of success to warrant a grant of special leave. The court held that the application should be dismissed, and pursuant to the relevant rule of the High Court Rules 2004, the Registrar was directed to draw up, sign, and seal an order dismissing the application.

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.