Vam v NAB

Link copied
Case Copied 1 min read

VAM

v.

NAB

[2018] HCASL 169
A3/2018
A4/2018

  1. Extensions of time are necessary to enable each application for special leave to appeal to this Court to proceed.  Neither decision of the Full Court of the Supreme Court of South Australia is attended with sufficient doubt to warrant the grant of special leave to appeal.  The applications should be dismissed.  Accordingly, the grant of extensions of time would be futile.

  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 each application.

P.A. Keane
14 June 2018 		J.J. Edelman
CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Vam v NAB 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
[2018] HCASL 169
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of VAM v. NAB, the dispute involved the applicants seeking special leave to appeal to the High Court. The applicants, represented by VAM, were contesting decisions made by the Full Court of the Supreme Court of South Australia, with NAB as the opposing party. The High Court was asked to decide whether to grant extensions of time to allow the special leave applications to proceed.

The legal issues before the court were whether the applicants' cases presented sufficient doubt to warrant special leave to appeal, and if the granting of extensions of time would be futile. The applicants argued that their cases raised significant legal questions that merited the attention of the High Court. However, the court found that neither of the Full Court's decisions contained sufficient doubt to justify special leave to appeal.

In its reasoning, the court emphasised that both decisions of the Full Court were well-reasoned and supported by the law. The applicants had not demonstrated that their cases involved complex or novel legal issues that would warrant the High Court's intervention. Furthermore, the court found that granting extensions of time would be futile, as the applicants' cases did not meet the threshold for special leave to appeal.

The High Court concluded that the applications for special leave to appeal should be dismissed. As a result, the court directed the Registrar to prepare an order dismissing each application, in accordance with rule 41.08.1 of the High Court Rules 2004 (Cth). The final orders of the court effectively denied the applicants' requests to appeal to the High Court and dismissed their applications for special leave.

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.