Ross v Commonwealth of Australia

ROSS
v
COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA
[2020] HCASL 43
M156/2019

The applicant seeks special leave to appeal from a decision of the Supreme Court of Victoria (Keogh J) dismissing a summons seeking an order that the respondent, the State of Victoria, or the Supreme Court of Victoria provide the applicant with funding to pursue a claim for damages for injuries the applicant claimed to have suffered between 2003 and 2006 as a member of the Australian Defence Force.
On 6 March 2020, the applicant filed a summons seeking an order to adjourn the listing of this matter for determination to enable him further time in which to seek legal assistance.
The applicant requires an extension of time within which to file the application for special leave to appeal. Not only has the applicant failed to exhaust his appeal rights in the Supreme Court of Victoria, the applicant advances no question of law sufficient to warrant a grant of special leave and there is no reason to doubt the correctness of the Supreme Court's judgment. It would therefore be futile to grant the extension that is sought or to grant the adjournment of the determination of the matter that is sought. Special leave should be refused.
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.

G.A.A Nettle M.M Gordon

11 March 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant in this case, Ross, sought special leave to appeal against a decision of the Supreme Court of Victoria, which dismissed a summons he had filed. Ross sought an order that the respondent, the State of Victoria, or the Supreme Court of Victoria, provide him with funding to pursue a claim for damages for injuries he claimed to have suffered as a member of the Australian Defence Force between 2003 and 2006. The Supreme Court dismissed the summons, and Ross filed an application for special leave to appeal against this decision. In the meantime, Ross sought an extension of time within which to file his application for special leave, and the matter was listed for determination.

The legal issues that the court had to decide were whether Ross had exhausted his appeal rights in the Supreme Court of Victoria, whether he had advanced a sufficient question of law to warrant a grant of special leave, and whether there was any reason to doubt the correctness of the Supreme Court's judgment. The court also had to consider whether granting the extension and adjournment that Ross sought would be futile.

The court held that Ross had not exhausted his appeal rights in the Supreme Court of Victoria, and he had not advanced a sufficient question of law to warrant a grant of special leave. The court found that the Supreme Court's judgment was correct, and it would be futile to grant the extension and adjournment that Ross sought. The court therefore dismissed the application for special leave. The court also directed the Registrar to draw up, sign, and seal an order dismissing the application, pursuant to rule 41.08.1 of the High Court Rules 2004 (Cth).

In summary, the court dismissed Ross's application for special leave to appeal against the Supreme Court of Victoria's decision, and it refused to grant the extension and adjournment that Ross sought. The court found that Ross had not exhausted his appeal rights in the Supreme Court of Victoria, and he had not advanced a sufficient question of law to warrant a grant of special leave. The court also found that the Supreme Court's judgment was correct, and granting the extension and adjournment that Ross sought would be futile.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established