Snezana Angeleska (Known As Slaveska) v State of Victoria

Case [2016] HCASL 5

SNEZANA ANGELESKA (KNOWN AS SLAVESKA)

v

STATE OF VICTORIA & ORS

[2016] HCASL 5
M206/2015

  1. The applicant requires an extension of time in which to seek special leave to appeal to this Court.  An extension of time would be futile.

  2. The Court is not persuaded that the judgment of the Court of Appeal is attended by sufficient doubt to warrant the grant of special leave to appeal.

  3. The application for special leave is dismissed.

  4. Pursuant to r 41.10.5 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
9 March 2016 		M.M. Gordon
Details
AGLC
Snezana Angeleska (Known As Slaveska) v State of Victoria [2016] HCASL 5
Case
[2016] HCASL 5
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the High Court of Australia involved Snezana Angeleska, known as Slaveska, as the applicant against the State of Victoria and others. Angeleska sought an extension of time to apply for special leave to appeal to the High Court, as she had already missed the deadline for such an application. The application for special leave to appeal related to a decision made by the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Victoria, which had dismissed Angeleska’s appeal from a lower court’s decision. Angeleska argued that the Court of Appeal had erred in their interpretation of the law and that this error was significant enough to warrant an appeal to the High Court.

The legal issues before the High Court included whether the Court of Appeal's decision contained sufficient doubt to justify granting special leave to appeal and whether an extension of time would be futile. The Court considered whether there was any substantial miscarriage of justice or other compelling reason to grant the extension of time, which is typically a stringent requirement. In examining the case, the Court assessed the arguments presented by Angeleska regarding the alleged errors in the Court of Appeal’s judgment and the implications of these errors on the outcome of her case.

The High Court found that the Court of Appeal's judgment did not contain sufficient doubt to warrant the grant of special leave to appeal. The Court was not persuaded that the issues raised by Angeleska were significant enough to merit an appeal to the High Court. Additionally, the Court determined that an extension of time would be futile, as the applicant had not presented a compelling reason for why the appeal should proceed despite the time constraints. Therefore, the application for special leave to appeal was dismissed, and the Registrar was directed to draw up, sign, and seal an order dismissing the application.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.