Stoltenberg v Bolton

STOLTENBERG
v
BOLTON
[2020] HCASL 249
S55/2020

An extension of time is necessary to enable this application for special leave to appeal to proceed. The appeal foreshadowed by the application for special leave raises no issue of principle that would warrant the grant of special leave to appeal. The appeal would turn on the application of settled principle to the facts of the case. In this regard, concurrent findings of fact by the trial judge and the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of New South Wales mean that the appeal must fail. The application should be refused. Accordingly, it would be futile to grant the extension of time.
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 costs.

S.J. Gageler P.A. Keane

12 November 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Stoltenberg v Bolton involved a legal dispute between the two parties, Stoltenberg and Bolton. The nature of the dispute was not explicitly stated in the text, but it is likely related to a matter that was decided upon in the Supreme Court of New South Wales, which was then appealed to the High Court. The High Court was called upon to decide on an application for special leave to appeal made by the applicant, Stoltenberg, who sought to appeal against a decision made by the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of New South Wales.

The legal issues that the court was required to decide included whether an extension of time was necessary to enable the application for special leave to appeal to proceed and whether the appeal would raise any issue of principle warranting the grant of special leave to appeal. The court also had to consider whether the appeal would turn on the application of settled principle to the facts of the case, and if the concurrent findings of fact by the trial judge and the Court of Appeal meant that the appeal must fail.

The court's reasoning and outcome were that the appeal did not raise any issue of principle that would warrant the grant of special leave to appeal. The appeal would turn on the application of settled principle to the facts of the case, and the concurrent findings of fact by the trial judge and the Court of Appeal meant that the appeal must fail. Therefore, the application for special leave to appeal should be refused. It would be futile to grant the extension of time. The court directed the Registrar to draw up, sign, and seal an order dismissing the application with costs. The final orders were that the application for special leave to appeal was dismissed with costs.

Keep reading for free

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established