Steven Charles Wickenden v Ben Smith

Link copied
Case Copied 1 min read

STEVEN CHARLES WICKENDEN

v

BEN SMITH

[2021] HCASL 217
B48/2021

  1. 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 Queensland, which dismissed the applicant's notice of appeal.

  2. The application discloses no error in the decision below. Accordingly, it would be futile to grant an extension of time that is sought. Special leave should be refused.

  3. Pursuant to r 41.08.1 of the High Court Rules 2004 (Cth), we direct the Registrar to draw up, sign and seal and order dismissing the application.

S.J Gageler J.S Gleeson
11 November 2021
CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Steven Charles Wickenden v Ben Smith 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
[2021] HCASL 217
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Steven Charles Wickenden has applied to the High Court of Australia for an extension of time to lodge an application for special leave to appeal against a decision of the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Queensland, which dismissed his notice of appeal. The applicant's application for special leave to appeal was dismissed on the basis that it disclosed no error in the decision below. The applicant seeks an extension of time to file an application for special leave to appeal on the basis that he did not receive a copy of the reasons for the dismissal of his appeal until 29 October 2021. The High Court was required to decide whether an extension of time should be granted, and if so, for how long. The Court held that an extension of time should not be granted, as the application for special leave to appeal disclosed no error in the decision below. The Court held that it would be futile to grant an extension of time that is sought, as the application for special leave to appeal disclosed no error in the decision below. Accordingly, the application for an extension of time should be refused. The Court held that the application for an extension of time should be dismissed, and 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 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.