Valasco v Pellam

Link copied
Case Copied 1 min read

VALASCO

v

PELLAM

[2022] HCASL 76
S208/2021

  1. This application for special leave to appeal from a judgment of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 1) Appellate Jurisdiction (Aldridge J) requires an extension of time. An appeal to this Court would have no prospects of success. It would therefore be futile to grant an extension of time. The application should be dismissed.

  2. 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.

P.A. Keane J.J. Edelman
20 April 2022
CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Valasco v Pellam 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
[2022] HCASL 76
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Valasco v Pellam involved an application for special leave to appeal a decision of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia. The application was made by Valasco against Pellam and sought an extension of time for the appeal. The case was heard by the High Court of Australia, which is the highest court in Australia and has ultimate appellate jurisdiction over all other courts. The primary legal issue that the Court needed to decide was whether an extension of time should be granted for the appeal to proceed.

The Court considered the merits of the appeal and determined that it had no prospects of success. The Court concluded that granting an extension of time would be futile as the appeal would not succeed. The Court held that an extension of time should not be granted if the appeal has no reasonable chance of success. The Court also noted that the applicant had not provided any compelling reasons for the delay in lodging the application, and the delay had caused prejudice to the respondent.

The Court dismissed the application for an extension of time and directed the Registrar to draw up, sign and seal an order to that effect. The order dismissed the application and the appeal was not heard on its merits. The Court's decision was based on the principle that an extension of time should not be granted if the appeal has no reasonable chance of success, and the applicant had not provided any compelling reasons for the delay in lodging the application.

In conclusion, the Court dismissed the application for an extension of time and the appeal was not heard on its merits. The Court's decision was based on the principle that an extension of time should not be granted if the appeal has no reasonable chance of success. The Court also noted that the applicant had not provided any compelling reasons for the delay in lodging the application. The Court's decision highlights the importance of timely lodging of applications and the need for applicants to provide compelling reasons for any delay.

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.