WEBB
v
TANG
[2023] HCASL 198
P18/2023
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.
Special leave to appeal is refused.
Gageler CJ
Gordon J
Edelman J
Steward J
Gleeson J
Jagot J
Beech-Jones J7 December 2023
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
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2023] HCASL 198
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
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.