Haykal v Krawiec

HAYKAL
v
KRAWIEC & ANOR
[2014] HCASL 49
S175/2013

The applicant applies for special leave to appeal from the orders of the Full Court of the Family Court of Australia (Coleman, Ainslie-Wallace and Ryan JJ) delivered on 19 March 2013 dismissing an appeal against the making of an indemnity costs order.
The applicant does not have legal representation and his application falls to be dealt with under r 41.10 of the High Court Rules 2004 (Cth) ("the Rules").
The application filed on 12 September 2013 is almost five months out of time. Compliance with the Rules respecting time should not be dispensed with. The prolix grounds of appeal and written case do not disclose any arguable basis of challenge to the decision of the Full Court.
The application is dismissed.
Pursuant to r 41.10.5 we direct the Registrar to draw up, sign and seal an order dismissing the application.

V.M. Bell
12 March 2014 S.J. Gageler

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, Haykal, sought special leave to appeal against the Full Court of the Family Court of Australia's dismissal of his appeal against the making of an indemnity costs order. Haykal, who appeared unrepresented, filed the application nearly five months after the time limit specified in the High Court Rules 2004 (Cth). The application was assessed under rule 41.10 of the Rules, which applies to pro se applicants. The respondents in the case were Krawiec and another party, whose names are not fully disclosed in the summary. The appeal concerned an order for indemnity costs that was made by the Family Court.

The primary legal issues for the High Court to decide were whether the application for special leave to appeal was filed within the required timeframe and whether there was an arguable basis for the appeal. Given that the application was significantly out of time and that the grounds of appeal and written case did not demonstrate any basis to challenge the Full Court's decision, the Court needed to determine whether the application should proceed despite these deficiencies.

The High Court found that strict compliance with the Rules regarding time limits should not be waived, particularly as the application was well beyond the permissible period. Additionally, the Court found that the grounds of appeal and the written case did not establish a valid challenge to the Full Court's decision. Consequently, the application for special leave to appeal was dismissed. The Court also directed the Registrar to prepare, sign, and seal the order dismissing the application.

In summary, the High Court upheld the Full Court's dismissal of Haykal's appeal and rejected his application for special leave to appeal. The Court's decision emphasised the importance of adhering to procedural rules and the necessity of demonstrating a valid basis for an appeal.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established