Flowers v Finlayson

FLOWERS
v
FINLAYSON
[2023] HCASL 118
A3/2023

The applicant requires an extension of time to apply for special leave to appeal from a decision of the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of South Australia (Livesey P, Doyle JA and Nicholson AJA) dismissing the applicant's application to reopen and set aside the judgment of the Full Court of the Supreme Court of South Australia (Peek, Stanley and Lovell JJ) which dismissed an appeal from the decision of the Legal Practitioners Disciplinary Tribunal.
The applicant has not identified a question of principle of general importance sufficient to warrant a grant of special leave to appeal and otherwise advances no arguable ground of appeal against the decision of the Court of Appeal. An appeal to this Court would enjoy no prospects of success. It would therefore be futile to grant the extension of time sought. Special leave should be 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.

S.J. Gageler J.M. Jagot

10 August 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Flowers v Finlayson, the applicant, Flowers, sought an extension of time to apply for special leave to appeal against a decision of the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of South Australia. The decision in question dismissed Flowers' application to reopen and set aside a judgment of the Full Court of the Supreme Court of South Australia. This judgment, in turn, had dismissed an appeal from the Legal Practitioners Disciplinary Tribunal. The applicant's primary aim was to appeal the Court of Appeal's decision to the High Court of Australia.

The central legal issues before the court were whether the applicant had identified a question of principle of general importance that warranted a grant of special leave to appeal and whether there were any arguable grounds of appeal against the Court of Appeal's decision. The court examined the merits of the applicant's application, considering whether an appeal to the High Court would enjoy prospects of success or if it would be futile. The applicant's failure to identify a significant question of law or principle and the absence of any substantial grounds for appeal were key factors in the court's decision-making process.

In evaluating the application, the court found that the applicant had not presented a question of principle of general importance or any arguable grounds of appeal against the decision of the Court of Appeal. The court concluded that an appeal to the High Court would be futile as it would have no prospects of success. Consequently, the court refused the special leave to appeal and dismissed the applicant's application for an extension of time. The decision was made in accordance with rule 41.08.1 of the High Court Rules 2004 (Cth), directing the Registrar to prepare, sign, and seal an order dismissing the application. This decision was rendered on August 10, 2023, by S.J. Gageler and J.M. Jagot.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established