Duarte v Morse & Anor

DUARTE
v
MORSE & ANOR
[2024] HCASL 255
S84/2024

The applicant requires an extension of time within which to seek special leave to appeal from a decision of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 1) Appellate Jurisdiction (Austin, Hartnett and Brasch JJ) dismissing an appeal from the judgment of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 1) (Harper J) in relation to an application seeking property settlement orders.
The decision of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 1) Appellate Jurisdiction is not attended with sufficient doubt, and the proposed appeal does not raise a question of law of general public importance, to warrant the grant of special leave to appeal. It would therefore be futile to grant the extension of time that is sought.
Special leave to appeal is refused.
Gordon J
Steward J
10 October 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Duarte v Morse & Anor involves the applicant, Duarte, seeking an extension of time to apply for special leave to appeal against a decision of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 1) Appellate Jurisdiction. The appeal in question pertains to the dismissal of an application for property settlement orders. The Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 1) Appellate Jurisdiction had dismissed an appeal from a decision made by a single judge of that court, Harper J. The primary legal issue before the court was whether the proposed appeal from the appellate jurisdiction decision raised a question of law of general public importance, or was attended with sufficient doubt, to warrant the grant of special leave to appeal. Additionally, the court had to determine whether granting the extension of time sought by the applicant would be futile.

The court examined the criteria for granting special leave to appeal, focusing on whether the case involved a question of law of general public importance or was attended with sufficient doubt. The court found that the decision of the appellate jurisdiction did not meet these criteria, and that the proposed appeal did not raise such a question. The court held that granting the extension of time sought by the applicant would be futile, as the appeal was unlikely to succeed. Consequently, the court refused special leave to appeal and denied the application for an extension of time.

The court’s reasoning was grounded in the established principles for granting special leave to appeal, which require that the case presents a question of law of general public importance or is attended with sufficient doubt. The court's decision was based on a thorough analysis of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 1) Appellate Jurisdiction's decision, concluding that it did not meet these criteria. The court determined that the proposed appeal was unlikely to succeed and, therefore, it would be futile to grant the extension of time.

The final orders of the court were that special leave to appeal was refused, and the application for an extension of time was denied. This outcome reflects the court's assessment that the case did not meet the necessary criteria for special leave to appeal and that any further proceedings would be futile.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established