Sunder Babu Etta v Ron Pearce

[2015] HCASL 8

SUNDER BABU ETTA

v

RON PEARCE

[2015] HCASL 8
M122/2014

1. The applicant sued the respondent, his former solicitor, in the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal ("the Tribunal") for damages resulting from the respondent's alleged negligence in acting for the applicant in personal injury proceedings.  The applicant claimed that the respondent had been negligent by failing to arrange for the medical panel to assess impairment benefits pursuant to the Accident Compensation Act 1985 (Vic) taking into account alleged injuries to the applicant's neck, and by failing to obtain a serious injury certificate for economic loss which included loss of earning capacity.

2. The proceedings were dismissed, and the applicant sought leave to appeal out of time on a question of law to the Supreme Court of Victoria under s 148(1) of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 1998 (Vic). The application was dismissed by an Associate Justice (Zammit AsJ) on the basis that the applicant had not identified any error of law made by the Tribunal or a prima facie case sufficient to warrant a grant of an extension of time. The applicant appealed to a single judge of the Supreme Court of Victoria (Hargrave J) under
   r 77.06 of the Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 2005 (Vic), who dismissed the appeal on the basis that there was no error in the reasons of the Associate Justice and that the applicant, on appeal, had not demonstrated any error of law in the reasons of the Tribunal. An application for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Victoria (Neave JA and Sloss AJA) was refused on the basis that the grounds advanced by the applicant did not identify any question of law. The applicant now seeks special leave to appeal from that decision to this Court.

3. The applicant does not have legal representation. The application therefore falls to be dealt with under r 41.10 of the High Court Rules 2004 (Cth).

4. The grounds specified by the applicant in his application to this Court do not identify any question of law or principle which would warrant a grant of special leave to appeal.  Nor is there any reason to doubt the correctness of the decision of the Court of Appeal.  The application is dismissed.

5. Pursuant to r 41.10.5, we direct the Registrar to draw up, sign and seal an order dismissing the application.

V.M. Bell
5 March 2015 S.J. Gageler