Olman v Teitzel

Case [2018] HCASL 156

OLMAN

v

TEITZEL

[2018] HCASL 156
M20/2018

  1. The summons filed on 9 April 2018, seeking leave to rely on an amended application for special leave, should be granted.  However, the application for special leave to appeal from the Family Court of Australia's refusal to extend the time within which to appeal from interlocutory orders made by the Federal Circuit Court of Australia does not raise any question of principle suitable for the grant of special leave.

  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.

V.M. Bell
13 June 2018 		S.J. Gageler
Details
AGLC
Olman v Teitzel [2018] HCASL 156
Case
[2018] HCASL 156
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Olman v Teitzel involved the applicants, Olman, seeking leave to appeal a decision of the Family Court of Australia. This appeal was in relation to the Family Court's refusal to extend the time within which to appeal from interlocutory orders made by the Federal Circuit Court of Australia. The applicants filed a summons on 9 April 2018, seeking leave to rely on an amended application for special leave. The matter was heard by the High Court of Australia.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the application for special leave to appeal from the Family Court of Australia's decision raised any question of principle suitable for the grant of special leave. The applicants argued that the Family Court's decision to refuse the extension of time was erroneous and warranted an appeal. However, the court had to determine whether this issue was of sufficient importance to warrant special leave.

The court found that while the summons filed on 9 April 2018 should be granted, the application for special leave did not raise any question of principle suitable for the grant of special leave. The court held that the Family Court's decision to refuse the extension of time was within its jurisdiction and did not warrant special leave. Consequently, the application for special leave was dismissed. Pursuant to r 41.08.1 of the High Court Rules 2004 (Cth), 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.