Emmott v Michael Wilson & Partners Ltd Michael Wilson & Partners Ltd v Emmott

Emmott
v
Michael Wilson & Partners Ltd
Michael Wilson & Partners Ltd
v
Emmott
[2022] HCASL 142
S6/2022
S18/2022

These applications are for special leave to appeal from a judgment of the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of New South Wales (Leeming and Brereton JJA and Emmett A‑JA). An extension of time is required for the application in S18/2022 to proceed.
The application in S6/2022 concerns matters of practice and procedure and does not raise any question of general principle sufficient to warrant the grant of special leave to appeal. The application in S18/2022 has insufficient prospects of success to warrant the grant of special leave to appeal and is not an appropriate vehicle for the consideration of any of the questions of principle raised. It would therefore be futile to grant an extension of time in S18/2022.
The applications should be dismissed. 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 each application with costs.

M.M. Gordon J.J. Edelman

8 September 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The High Court was asked to consider two applications for special leave to appeal arising from two different proceedings in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. In S6/2022, Michael Wilson & Partners Ltd sought to appeal against a decision that had implications for the procedural aspects of the case. In S18/2022, Emmott sought to appeal against a decision that involved substantive legal issues. Both applications sought extensions of time to proceed with the appeals.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the applications raised questions of general principle sufficient to warrant the grant of special leave to appeal and whether the applications had sufficient prospects of success. The court had to determine whether the applications were appropriate vehicles for considering the questions of principle raised and whether granting an extension of time in S18/2022 would be futile.

The court held that the application in S6/2022 did not raise any question of general principle sufficient to warrant the grant of special leave to appeal. It was noted that the application concerned matters of practice and procedure rather than substantive legal principles. In relation to S18/2022, the court found that the application had insufficient prospects of success to warrant the grant of special leave to appeal. Additionally, it was not an appropriate vehicle for the consideration of the questions of principle raised. The court concluded that granting an extension of time in this case would be futile.

The court dismissed both applications and directed the Registrar to draw up, sign and seal an order dismissing each application with costs. The decision was made pursuant to rule 41.08.1 of the High Court Rules 2004 (Cth).

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established