Goldsmith & Anor v AMP Life Ltd

GOLDSMITH & ANOR
v
AMP LIFE LTD
[2021] HCASL 133
B16/2021

An extension of time is required for this application to proceed. This application for special leave to appeal from a judgment of the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Queensland (Sofronoff P, Morrison JA and Henry J) refusing leave to appeal from a decision of the District Court of Queensland (Porter DCJ) does not have sufficient prospects of success to warrant the grant of special leave to appeal. Accordingly, it would be futile to grant an extension of time. The application should be dismissed.
Pursuant to r 41.08.1 of the HighCourt Rules 2004 (Cth), we direct the Registrar to draw up, sign and seal an order dismissing the application with costs.

M.M. Gordon J.J. Edelman

5 August 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicants in this matter, Goldsmith and another, sought special leave to appeal a decision of the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Queensland which had dismissed their appeal against the District Court's refusal to grant leave to appeal against a decision of the District Court of Queensland. The respondents were AMP Life Limited, and the nature of the dispute was the interpretation and application of certain clauses within an insurance contract. The matter was heard by the High Court of Australia, specifically the Full Court, which was constituted by Gordon and Edelman JJ.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the applicants had demonstrated sufficient prospects of success to warrant the grant of special leave to appeal. The applicants argued that the lower courts had erred in their interpretation of the insurance contract terms, which they believed was pivotal to their appeal. They also contended that the appeal had merit in light of certain legal principles and precedents. However, the High Court needed to determine if the applicants' arguments had a reasonable chance of success at the appellate level, given the established criteria for granting special leave.

The High Court considered the applicants' submissions and the grounds of appeal, and concluded that there were no compelling reasons to believe that the appeal would be successful. The court found that the arguments presented did not sufficiently challenge the reasoning or conclusions of the lower courts. As a result, the High Court determined that granting special leave to appeal would be futile, and thus dismissed the application. The court further noted that extending the time for the application would serve no purpose, as the prospects of success remained low.

In light of the dismissal of the application, the High Court ordered that the Registrar draw up, sign, and seal an order dismissing the application with costs. This decision effectively ends the applicants' pursuit of special leave to appeal, and the costs incurred by the respondents will be borne by the applicants.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established