Webb v Department for Correctional Services

WEBB
v
DEPARTMENT FOR CORRECTIONAL SERVICES
[2024] HCASL 111
A22/2023

The applicant applies for an extension of time in which to seek special leave to appeal from a judgment of the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of South Australia (Lovell, Bleby and David JJA) given on 12 October 2023,[1] confirming the decision of the Supreme Court of South Australia (Bampton J) to grant summary judgment in favour of the respondent.[2]
[1]Webb v Department for Correctional Services [2023] SASCA 110.
[2]Webb v Chief Executive, Department for Correctional Services [2023] SASC 42.
The first proposed ground of appeal raises a question of law of public importance. However, the proposed appeal is not a suitable vehicle to consider the question raised. The second ground of appeal has insufficient prospects of success to warrant a grant of special leave to appeal. Accordingly, it would be futile to grant an extension of time.
Special leave to appeal is refused with costs.
Gageler CJ
Gordon J
Edelman J
Steward J
Gleeson J
Jagot J
Beech-Jones J
11 April 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant in this case, Webb, sought an extension of time to apply for special leave to appeal against a decision made by the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of South Australia. This decision confirmed the grant of summary judgment in favour of the respondent, the Department for Correctional Services, in a case originally decided by Bampton J in the Supreme Court of South Australia. The appeal sought to challenge the correctness of the Court of Appeal's judgment and to raise questions of public importance.

The legal issues before the Court were twofold. Firstly, whether the proposed grounds of appeal raised questions of law of sufficient public importance to warrant consideration by the High Court. Secondly, whether the proposed grounds had sufficient prospects of success to justify the grant of special leave to appeal. The Court had to assess the merits of each proposed ground of appeal and determine if they met the threshold requirements for special leave.

The Court found that the first proposed ground of appeal, while raising a question of law of public importance, was not suitable for consideration by the High Court in this context. The Court of Appeal's judgment was considered to be the appropriate forum for such matters. The second ground of appeal was found to have insufficient prospects of success. The Court determined that it would be futile to grant an extension of time, as the chances of success were minimal.

As a result, the High Court refused special leave to appeal and ordered that costs be paid by the applicant. The Court concluded that the application did not meet the necessary criteria for an extension of time to be granted, and therefore, the appeal was dismissed.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established