Stanizzo v Fregnan

STANIZZO
v
FREGNAN & ORS
[2022] HCASL 16
S163/2021

The applicant seeks an extension of time in which to file an application for special leave to appeal from a decision of the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of New South Wales, which dismissed his appeals in three related proceedings.
The application raises no question of general application and involves questions of fact. The Court of Appeal's decision is not attended by sufficient doubt to warrant a grant of special leave to appeal. Accordingly, it would be futile to grant the extension of time that is sought.
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 with an order that the applicant pay the second respondent's costs.

S.J Gageler J.S Gleeson

17 February 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Stanizzo v Fregnan, the applicant sought an extension of time in which to file an application for special leave to appeal against a decision of the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The Court of Appeal had dismissed the applicant's appeals in three related proceedings. The applicant's request for an extension of time was made under rule 41.08.1 of the High Court Rules 2004 (Cth). The application did not raise any questions of general application and was concerned with questions of fact. The Court of Appeal's decision was considered to be free from sufficient doubt to warrant the grant of special leave to appeal. Consequently, the extension of time sought by the applicant was deemed futile.

The legal issues before the court were whether the applicant's application for an extension of time should be granted, and if so, whether it warranted the grant of special leave to appeal. The applicant argued that the extension of time should be granted to allow for the preparation and filing of a special leave to appeal application. However, the Court found that the Court of Appeal's decision was not attended by sufficient doubt, and that granting the extension of time would be futile. The court also noted that the applicant's application raised no questions of general application and involved questions of fact.

The court's reasoning was that the Court of Appeal's decision was considered to be free from sufficient doubt to warrant the grant of special leave to appeal. The court found that the applicant's application for an extension of time was futile and would not result in a successful special leave to appeal application. The court also noted that the applicant's application raised no questions of general application and involved questions of fact. The court held that the application should be dismissed, and that the applicant should pay the second respondent's costs. Accordingly, the court directed the Registrar to draw up, sign, and seal an order dismissing the application with an order that the applicant pay the second respondent's costs.

Continue reading Stanizzo v Fregnan

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established