Roberts-Smith v The Age Company Pty Ltd (ACN 004 262 702) & Ors

ROBERTS-SMITH

THE AGE COMPANY PTY LTD (ACN 004 262 702) & ORS
[2025] HCADISP 219
S82/2025

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

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Roberts-Smith v The Age Company Pty Ltd, the applicant, former special forces soldier Ben Roberts-Smith, sought an extension of time to appeal certain orders made by the Federal Court of Australia. The orders in question were part of an interlocutory ruling in a defamation case brought by Roberts-Smith against Fairfax Media Publications Pty Ltd, which also named The Age Company Pty Ltd and others as respondents. The Federal Court had ruled against Roberts-Smith, and he sought to challenge those decisions in the High Court.

The primary legal issue before the High Court was whether to grant an extension of time to Roberts-Smith to seek special leave to appeal the Federal Court's orders. The court also needed to consider whether the proposed appeal had sufficient prospects of success and whether it raised any question of legal principle. The High Court examined the grounds for the application, the merits of the appeal, and the importance of adhering to procedural timelines.

In its decision, the High Court found that the application did not raise any question of legal principle and that the proposed appeal had insufficient prospects of success. The court determined that granting an extension of time would be futile. Consequently, the High Court refused the application for special leave to appeal, ordering that costs be paid by Roberts-Smith. The refusal was based on the lack of legal merit in the proposed appeal and the need to uphold the integrity of the appellate process.

The final order of the court was the refusal of special leave to appeal with costs to be paid by Roberts-Smith, effectively ending his attempt to challenge the Federal Court's interlocutory rulings in the High Court.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established