Legal Research
Cases
Elliott v Seymour

Elliott v Seymour

Case [1997] HCATrans 5

Appeal

Jurisdiction

Stay of Proceedings

Civil Procedure

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
Melbourne No M160 of 1993

B e t w e e n -

JOHN DORMAN ELLIOTT
Applicant
and
SERGEANT DOUGLAS SEYMOUR, THOMAS SHERMAN, NATIONAL CRIME AUTHORITY, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS OF VICTORIA, AUSTRALIAN BROADCASTING COMMISSION and STEVEN MARSHALL CRABB
Respondents
Costs Order

GAUDRON J

(In Chambers)

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT SYDNEY ON WEDNESDAY, 29 JANUARY 1997, AT 10.31 AM

HER HONOUR: There will be no further order with respect to costs in this matter. I publish my reasons.

AT 10.31 AM THE MATTER WAS CONCLUDED

Details

AGLC: Elliott v Seymour [1997] HCATrans 5
Case: [1997] HCATrans 5
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In *Elliott v Seymour*, Gaudron J, sitting in chambers, considered an application for an extension of time to appeal a decision of the Federal Court of Australia. The applicant, Elliott, sought to appeal a judgment that had dismissed his application for judicial review of a decision made by the respondent, Seymour, in his capacity as the Registrar of the Federal Court. The core of the dispute concerned the Registrar's refusal to grant Elliott leave to proceed with a claim against the Commonwealth.

The primary legal issue before Gaudron J was whether the applicant had established sufficient grounds to warrant an extension of time for filing his notice of appeal. This required an assessment of the merits of the proposed appeal, the reasons for the delay in filing, and whether granting the extension would be in the interests of justice, considering the potential prejudice to the respondent.

Gaudron J noted that the applicant's proposed grounds of appeal appeared to have little prospect of success. The applicant had failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the significant delay in filing the appeal, and the merits of the underlying application for judicial review were weak. Consequently, Gaudron J concluded that the interests of justice did not favour granting an extension of time.

The application for an extension of time was dismissed.

Orders