S v D

The case of S v D involves an applicant appealing a decision made by Magistrate Duncanson regarding the division of property following the breakdown of a de facto relationship with the respondent. Initially, the magistrate ordered that the respondent receive 60 per cent of the assets and the applicant receive 40 per cent. The applicant subsequently appealed to the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Western Australia, but the appeal was dismissed. The applicant has now applied for special leave to appeal to the High Court. The applicant is unrepresented and the application is being considered under rule 41.10 of the High Court Rules 2004.

The primary legal issue for the court was whether the applicant's application for special leave to appeal should be granted. The applicant sought a short enlargement of time to file the application, providing a satisfactory explanation for the delay. However, the court had to consider whether there was any utility in making an order dispensing with compliance with the rules in this respect. Additionally, the court needed to determine if the proposed grounds of appeal attacked the concurrent factual findings below, if there was any question of law suitable for the grant of special leave, and whether the application engaged the interests of the administration of justice.

The court found that there was no utility in making an order dispensing with compliance with the rules, and the proposed grounds of appeal did not attack the concurrent factual findings below. The court also noted that no question of law suitable for the grant of special leave was identified, nor did the application engage the interests of the administration of justice. Consequently, the application was dismissed. Pursuant to rule 41.10.5 of the High Court Rules 2004, the Registrar was directed to draw up, sign and seal an order dismissing the application. The decision was made on 6 May 2015 by V.M. Bell and S.J. Gageler.