Legal Research
Cases
Roberts-Smith v Fairfax Media Publications Pty Ltd (ACN 003 357 720) & Ors

Roberts-Smith v Fairfax Media Publications Pty Ltd (ACN 003 357 720) & Ors

Case [2025] HCADisp 218 4 September 2025

Appeal

Limitation Periods

Costs

Civil Litigation & Procedure

Type to search within this case.

ROBERTS-SMITH

FAIRFAX MEDIA PUBLICATIONS PTY LTD (ACN 003 357 720) & ORS
[2025] HCADISP 218
S81/2025

The applicant requires an extension of time within which to seek special leave to appeal from orders 1 and 7 of certain orders made by the Federal Court of Australia (Perram J) on 30 April 2025 for which reasons were given on 23 May 2025 in Roberts-Smith v Fairfax Media Publications Pty Ltd (Interlocutory Rulings) [2025] FCA 504.
The application for special leave raises no question of legal principle and the proposed appeal has insufficient prospects of success. It would therefore be futile to grant the extension of time sought.
Special leave to appeal is refused with costs.

Gageler CJ

Gordon J

Edelman J

Steward J

Gleeson J

Jagot J

Beech-Jones J

4 September 2025

Details

AGLC: Roberts-Smith v Fairfax Media Publications Pty Ltd (ACN 003 357 720) & Ors [2025] HCADISP 218
Case: [2025] HCADisp 218
Decision Date: 4 September 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Roberts-Smith v Fairfax Media Publications Pty Ltd (ACN 003 357 720) & Ors, the applicant sought an extension of time to appeal certain orders made by the Federal Court of Australia. The orders in question were issued on 30 April 2025, with reasons provided on 23 May 2025. The applicant's request for an extension of time related to seeking special leave to appeal from orders 1 and 7 of these interlocutory rulings.

The legal issues before the court included whether the application for special leave raised any question of legal principle and whether the proposed appeal had sufficient prospects of success. The court also had to consider whether granting the extension of time sought would be futile.

The High Court found that the application for special leave raised no question of legal principle and that the proposed appeal had insufficient prospects of success. The court concluded that it would be futile to grant the extension of time sought. As a result, special leave to appeal was refused, and the applicant was ordered to pay costs.

This case underscores the rigorous scrutiny applied by the High Court when considering applications for extensions of time to appeal, particularly in matters where the prospects of success are deemed low. The decision also highlights the importance of ensuring that appeals are both legally meritorious and practically viable before proceeding.

Orders