Webb v Tang

Link copied
Case Copied 1 min read

WEBB

v

TANG

[2023] HCASL 198
P18/2023

  1. The applicant has not identified a question of law of public importance sufficient to warrant the grant of special leave to appeal and otherwise advances no arguable ground of appeal against the decision of the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Western Australia (Buss P, Mazza and Vaughan JJA). It would not be in the interests of the administration of justice generally or in the particular circumstances of this case to grant special leave.

  2. Special leave to appeal is refused.

    Gageler CJ
    Gordon J
    Edelman J
    Steward J
    Gleeson J
    Jagot J
    Beech-Jones J

    7 December 2023

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Webb v Tang 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
[2023] HCASL 198
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Webb v Tang involved the applicant seeking special leave to appeal against the decision of the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Western Australia. The dispute primarily revolved around the applicant's dissatisfaction with the outcome of the lower court's ruling, which had been upheld by the Court of Appeal. The applicant argued that there were significant questions of law that warranted the Supreme Court's intervention.

The primary legal issue the court had to address was whether the applicant had identified a question of law of sufficient public importance to warrant special leave to appeal. Additionally, the court needed to determine if the applicant had advanced any arguable grounds of appeal against the Court of Appeal’s decision. The court was also required to consider whether granting special leave would be in the interests of the administration of justice.

In considering these issues, the court examined the applicant's arguments and concluded that there was no question of law of public importance. Furthermore, the court found that the applicant had not presented any arguable grounds of appeal against the Court of Appeal's decision. The court held that granting special leave would not serve the interests of the administration of justice, either generally or in the specific circumstances of this case. Therefore, the Supreme Court refused the application for special leave to appeal.

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.