Volkov v The King

VOLKOV
v
THE KING
[2025] HCADisp 21
B63/2024

The applicant requires an extension of time within which to seek special leave to appeal from a decision of the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Queensland (Bond JA, Mullins P and Crow J agreeing) refusing the applicant's application for an extension of time in which to file a second application for leave to appeal against sentence imposed in the Supreme Court of Queensland (Martin J).
The special leave application raises a question of general principle concerning the jurisdiction of an appellate court to hear a second application for leave to appeal in circumstances where the application was determined on the merits of the proposed appeal and leave was refused. However, the matter is not an appropriate vehicle through which to consider the issue because, without finally resolving the issue, the Court of Appeal determined the application on the basis that the Court did have jurisdiction.
There is also no reason to doubt the correctness of the decision of the Court of Appeal in respect of the balance of the proposed grounds of appeal. An appeal to this Court would therefore enjoy no prospects of success. Accordingly, it would be futile to grant the extension of time.
Special leave to appeal is refused.
Edelman J
Gleeson J
6 March 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Volkov v The King, the applicant sought an extension of time to apply for special leave to appeal against a decision of the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Queensland. The initial application for an extension of time was refused by the Court of Appeal, which was composed of Bond JA, Mullins P, and Crow J, who were in agreement. The applicant's case centred on the jurisdiction of an appellate court to consider a second application for leave to appeal when the application has been decided on its merits and leave was previously refused. The matter, however, was not deemed suitable to address this question of general principle, as the Court of Appeal had determined the application based on its own jurisdiction.

The legal issues before the court involved the scope of appellate jurisdiction in cases where a second application for leave to appeal has been made after the initial application was decided on its merits. The central question was whether the Court of Appeal had the jurisdiction to hear such a second application. The High Court also needed to consider the prospects of success of an appeal to itself. The applicant's case argued that the Court of Appeal's determination was incorrect, but the High Court found that it could not finally resolve the issue of jurisdiction without further evidence or arguments.

The High Court's reasoning was that the Court of Appeal had exercised its jurisdiction correctly and that the proposed grounds of appeal did not present any basis for a successful appeal. The Court found that resolving the jurisdictional issue was unnecessary as the Court of Appeal had already decided it in favour of its own jurisdiction. Furthermore, the Court held that an appeal to the High Court would not have a reasonable prospect of success, making it futile to grant the requested extension of time. Consequently, the High Court refused the application for special leave to appeal.

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