Tratter v Aware Super & Ors

Case [2024] HCASL 172


TRATTER

v

AWARE SUPER & ORS

[2024] HCASL 172
M33/2024

  1. The applicant requires an extension of time within which to seek special leave to appeal from the whole of the judgment of the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia (O'Callaghan, Anderson and McElwaine JJ), dismissing an appeal from the judgment of a single judge of the Federal Court of Australia (Wheelahan J), which in turn dismissed an appeal against a determination of the Australian Financial Complaints Authority affirming a decision of the trustee of Aware Super (formerly First State Super).

  2. An appeal to this Court would enjoy no prospects of success. It would therefore be futile to grant the extension of time that is sought.

  3. Special leave to appeal is refused.

    Gordon J
    Steward J 

    8 August 2024

Continue reading Tratter v Aware Super & Ors

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Tratter v Aware Super & Ors [2024] HCASL 172
Case
[2024] HCASL 172
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Tratter v Aware Super & Ors, the applicant, Tratter, sought an extension of time to appeal a decision made by the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia, which had dismissed an earlier appeal. The original appeal was against a determination by the Australian Financial Complaints Authority, affirming a decision by the trustee of Aware Super (formerly First State Super). The application for special leave to appeal was made to the High Court of Australia.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether an extension of time should be granted for Tratter to seek special leave to appeal the Full Court's decision, given that an appeal would likely be futile. The court needed to assess the prospects of success for the proposed appeal and determine if granting the extension would serve any meaningful purpose.

The court concluded that an appeal to the High Court would not have a reasonable prospect of success, as the Full Court's decision was well-reasoned and aligned with established legal principles. The court further found that granting the extension would be futile, as the appeal would not address any significant legal questions or errors that could lead to a different outcome. Consequently, the court refused to grant the extension of time and dismissed the application for special leave to appeal.

The High Court's decision was that special leave to appeal was refused, and no further orders were made.

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.