Ross v Commonwealth of Australia

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.