Roberts-Smith v The Federal Capital Press Of Australia Pty Ltd (ACN 008 394 063) & Ors

ROBERTS-SMITH

THE FEDERAL CAPITAL PRESS OF AUSTRALIA PTY LTD (ACN 008 394 063) & ORS
[2025] HCADISP 220
S83/2025

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

The application before the High Court was brought by the applicant seeking an extension of time to appeal certain orders made by the Federal Court of Australia in a case involving Roberts-Smith against The Federal Capital Press of Australia Pty Ltd and others. The orders in question were made on 30 April 2025 and reasons were provided on 23 May 2025. The applicant argued that the appeal did not raise any questions of legal principle and that the prospects of success for the proposed appeal were insufficient. The central legal issue was whether the applicant should be granted an extension of time to seek special leave to appeal.

The High Court, in dismissing the application, reasoned that since the appeal did not involve any questions of legal principle and had insufficient prospects of success, granting the extension of time would be futile. The Court held that the application for special leave to appeal was not meritorious, and therefore, the appeal would not serve any meaningful purpose. The Court considered the futility of proceeding with the appeal and determined that it was not in the interest of justice to grant the extension of time. Consequently, the application for special leave to appeal was refused, and the Court awarded costs against the applicant.

In summary, the High Court refused the applicant's request for an extension of time to appeal the Federal Court orders. The Court found that the appeal did not involve any questions of legal principle and had insufficient prospects of success, making the extension of time futile. As a result, the application for special leave to appeal was dismissed, and costs were awarded against the applicant.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established