Yuhui Lei (Also Known As Juliya Lei) & Anor v Zhenji Lei (Also Known As Peter Lei)

YUHUI LEI (ALSO KNOWN AS JULIYA LEI) & ANOR
v
ZHENJI LEI (ALSO KNOWN AS PETER LEI) & ORS
[2017] HCASL 65
M17/2017

On 14 December 2016, Bell and Gageler JJ refused the applicants' application for an extension of time in which to seek special leave to appeal from a decision of the Supreme Court of Victoria (Riordan J) of 17 June 2016 and dismissed that application for special leave to appeal (Lei & Anor v Lei & Ors [2016] HCASL 342). The applicants have now filed a further application for special leave to appeal from the same decision, for which the applicants require an extension of time.
In view of the dismissal of the applicants' previous application, this application is an abuse of process and for that reason is refused.
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 the application.

G.A.A. Nettle
30 March 2017 M.M. Gordon

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Yuhui Lei (also known as Juliya Lei) and another versus Zhenji Lei (also known as Peter Lei) and others involves a matter that was initially heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The dispute pertains to an application for an extension of time to seek special leave to appeal a decision made by the Supreme Court on 17 June 2016. The applicants, Yuhui Lei and another, had previously sought an extension of time to appeal a decision which was dismissed by Bell and Gageler JJ on 14 December 2016. The applicants have now lodged a further application for special leave to appeal from the same decision, seeking an extension of time.

The legal issues before the court were whether the applicants' latest application for an extension of time and special leave to appeal was an abuse of process, given the previous dismissal of a similar application. The court had to consider the principles surrounding the abuse of process doctrine and whether the applicants' conduct in making a second application after a dismissal constituted an abuse. Additionally, the court examined the circumstances under which an extension of time might be granted in such cases, balancing the need for procedural fairness with the overarching need to maintain the integrity of the court process.

The court held that the applicants' further application for special leave to appeal, after their previous application had been dismissed, amounted to an abuse of process. The court found that the applicants' conduct in making the second application was inappropriate given the circumstances. The dismissal of the initial application was seen as a final determination, and making a subsequent application without addressing the reasons for the dismissal was deemed an abuse. As a result, the application for an extension of time was refused. The court also dismissed the application for special leave to appeal.

The orders of the court were that the application for special leave to appeal be dismissed, and the application for an extension of time was also dismissed. Pursuant to rule 41.08.1 of the High Court Rules 2004 (Cth), the Registrar was directed to draw up, sign, and seal an order formalising the dismissal of the application.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established