PRS v Crime and Corruption Commission

Link copied
Case Copied 1 min read

PRS

v

CRIME AND CORRUPTION COMMISSION

[2020] HCASL 169
B77/2019

  1. The applicant requires an extension of time within which to file an application for special leave to appeal from a judgment of the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Queensland (Morrison and McMurdo JJA, and Bradley J) dismissing an appeal from a decision of the Supreme Court of Queensland (Davis J).

  2. The application would enjoy insufficient prospects of success to warrant a grant of special leave.  Accordingly, it would be futile to grant the extension of time required.  Special leave should be refused.

  3. 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 with costs.

V.M Bell G.A.A Nettle
6 August 2020
CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read PRS v Crime and Corruption Commission 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
[2020] HCASL 169
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant in this matter, PRS, sought an extension of time in which to file an application for special leave to appeal from a decision of the Queensland Supreme Court. The application for special leave was to appeal a decision of the Queensland Supreme Court which had dismissed an appeal from a decision of the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Queensland. The legal issues before the court were whether the application would have sufficient prospects of success to warrant a grant of special leave and whether it would be futile to grant the extension of time required. The court was required to consider the merits of the case and whether there were any exceptional circumstances that warranted the extension of time.

The court held that the application would enjoy insufficient prospects of success to warrant a grant of special leave. The court found that the application would be futile to grant the extension of time required. The court considered the merits of the case and found that there were no exceptional circumstances that warranted the extension of time. The court held that the application would be refused and that special leave should be denied. The court also directed the Registrar to draw up, sign and seal an order dismissing the application with costs.

In summary, the court dismissed the application for an extension of time in which to file an application for special leave. The court held that the application would enjoy insufficient prospects of success to warrant a grant of special leave and that it would be futile to grant the extension of time required. The court found that there were no exceptional circumstances that warranted the extension of time and that the application should be refused. The court also directed the Registrar to draw up, sign and seal an order dismissing the application with costs.

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.