Morant v Terry Ryan (the State Coroner)

Link copied
Case Copied 1 min read

MORANT
v

TERRY RYAN (THE STATE CORONER)
[2023] HCASL 201
B33/2023

  1. This application for special leave to appeal from a judgment of the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Queensland (Bond JA, Boddice AJA and Wilson J), dismissing an application for leave to appeal from the decision of the District Court of Queensland (Loury DCJ), does not raise any question of general importance that might warrant the grant of special leave to appeal. An appeal to this Court would have insufficient prospects of success. It is unnecessary to consider the application made by the Attorney-General of the State of Queensland for leave to appear as amicus curiae.

  2. Special leave to appeal is refused.

    Gageler CJ

    Gordon J

    Edelman J

    Steward J

    Gleeson J

    Jagot J

    Beech-Jones J

    7 December 2023

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Morant v Terry Ryan (the State Coroner) 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
[2023] HCASL 201
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The application for special leave to appeal came before the High Court of Australia in the matter of Morant versus Terry Ryan, the State Coroner. The applicant sought to appeal against a decision from the Supreme Court of Queensland, which had dismissed an application for leave to appeal the decision of the District Court of Queensland. The original dispute involved the death of a person, and the applicant was challenging the findings made by the State Coroner in relation to the cause of death.

The primary legal issues before the High Court were whether the application for special leave to appeal raised a question of general importance and whether there were sufficient prospects of success for the appeal. The Court was required to determine if the case warranted special leave to appeal and if the applicant's arguments had merit to be heard in the High Court.

The High Court found that the application for special leave to appeal did not raise a question of general importance that would warrant granting special leave. The Court concluded that an appeal to the High Court would have insufficient prospects of success. The Court further determined that it was unnecessary to consider the application made by the Attorney-General of the State of Queensland for leave to appear as amicus curiae. Consequently, the High Court refused the application for special leave to appeal.

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.