Singh v Khan & Ors - [2022] HCASL 123

SINGH
v
KHAN & ORS
[2022] HCASL 123
S52/2022
S54/2022

The applicant requires an extension of time in respect of each application but it would be futile to grant each extension.
S52/2022
The applicant seeks special leave to appeal from that part of the decision of the Federal Court of Australia (Bromwich J) which dismissed the applicant's application for Bromwich J to recuse himself from hearing the applicant's application for an extension of time and leave to appeal from two earlier decisions of the Federal Court of Australia (Stewart J) and dismissed a related application for, among other things, an order that the applicant be provided with an audio recording of a hearing before the Federal Court of Australia. The application to this Court raises no question of principle and does not enjoy any prospects of success. Further, it is not in the interests of justice to grant special leave to appeal. The application for special leave to appeal should be refused.
S54/2022
The applicant seeks special leave to appeal from that part of the decision of the Federal Court of Australia (Bromwich J) which dismissed the applicant's application for Bromwich J to recuse himself from hearing an appeal from a decision of the Federal Circuit Court of Australia (Judge Street). This further application raises no question of principle and does not enjoy any prospects of success. Further, it is not in the interests of justice to grant special leave to appeal. The application for special leave to appeal 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 each application.

M.M. Gordon S.H.P. Steward

11 August 2022

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Singh v Khan & Ors and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2022] HCASL 123
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicants, Singh, sought an extension of time in respect of two separate applications, one in S52/2022 and another in S54/2022. The applications were before the High Court of Australia as special leave applications to appeal against decisions made by the Federal Court of Australia. In S52/2022, the applicants sought an extension of time in respect of an appeal from two earlier decisions of the Federal Court of Australia (Stewart J) and a related application for an audio recording of a hearing. In S54/2022, the applicants sought an extension of time in respect of an appeal from a decision of the Federal Circuit Court of Australia (Judge Street). The applicants also sought the recusal of Bromwich J from hearing both applications.

The court was required to decide whether the applications for special leave to appeal raised any questions of principle and whether they enjoyed any prospects of success. The court also had to consider whether granting special leave to appeal was in the interests of justice.

The court found that the applications for special leave to appeal raised no questions of principle and did not enjoy any prospects of success. The court also found that it was not in the interests of justice to grant special leave to appeal. The applications for special leave to appeal were dismissed.

Pursuant to r 41.08.1 of the High Court Rules 2004 (Cth), the Registrar was directed to draw up, sign, and seal an order dismissing each application.

Orders