Peers v Fletcher & Anor

PEERS
v
FLETCHER & ANOR
[2025] HCADISP 20
M115/2024

The applicant requires an extension of time within which to seek special leave to appeal from the whole of the judgment of the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Victoria (Kaye JA) of 21 November 2024 which refused the applicant's application for an extension of time to file an application for leave to appeal from orders made by the Supreme Court of Victoria in two separate proceedings (Gorton J and Watson J).
The application for special leave to appeal does not raise a question of law of public importance and any appeal would have no prospects of success. It is not in the interests of the administration of justice, either generally or in this case, for special leave to appeal to be granted. It would therefore be futile to grant the extension of time that is sought.
Special leave to appeal is refused.
Gordon J
Beech-Jones J
6 March 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Peers v Fletcher & Anor involves the applicant seeking an extension of time to apply for special leave to appeal against the judgment of the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Victoria. The Court of Appeal had previously refused the applicant's request for an extension of time to file an application for leave to appeal from orders made by the Supreme Court of Victoria in two separate proceedings. The applicant's request for special leave to appeal does not present a question of law of public importance and any potential appeal is unlikely to succeed. Furthermore, granting the extension of time sought would not serve the interests of justice either in general or in this specific case. Consequently, the application for special leave to appeal was denied.

The central legal issue before the court was whether it should grant the applicant an extension of time to seek special leave to appeal against the decision of the Court of Appeal. The court had to consider whether the applicant's appeal had any prospects of success, if the issue raised was of public importance, and whether granting the extension would be in the interests of the administration of justice. The applicant argued that the extension was necessary, but the court found that the appeal would be futile and that granting the extension would not be justified.

In reaching its decision, the court found that the applicant's appeal lacked any significant legal merit and did not present a question of law of public importance. The court also determined that allowing the extension of time would not serve the interests of justice either generally or in this case. The court concluded that any appeal would be futile and therefore refused the application for special leave to appeal and the requested extension of time.

The final orders of the court were that the applicant's request for an extension of time to seek special leave to appeal was refused. The court confirmed that special leave to appeal was denied as the application did not raise a question of law of public importance and any appeal would have no prospects of success. Additionally, it was determined that granting the extension of time would not be in the interests of the administration of justice.

Keep reading for free

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established