In the Matter of An Application BY Jerrod James Conomy for Leave to Appeal

IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION BY JERROD JAMES CONOMY FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL
[2019] HCASL 9
P56/2018

On 17 October 2018, Keane J refused the applicant's ex parte application for leave to file a proposed summons and supporting affidavit in matter P19 of 2016 on the grounds that no good reason had been shown to allow the documents to be filed and that insofar as the applicant was attempting to re-agitate the matters determined in P19 of 2016, it was an exercise in futility. An appeal to this Court would enjoy no prospect of success. Leave to appeal 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.

G.A.A. Nettle
6 February 2019 M.M. Gordon

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Jerrod James Conomy applied for leave to appeal a decision by Keane J which had refused an ex parte application to file a proposed summons and supporting affidavit in a matter before the Supreme Court of Queensland. The matter in question involved the applicant's attempt to re-agitate issues that had already been determined in a previous proceeding. Keane J had dismissed the application on the grounds that no good reason had been shown for allowing the documents to be filed and that the application was futile. Conomy sought leave to appeal this decision to the Supreme Court of Queensland.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the applicant had demonstrated a sufficient basis to warrant the court granting leave to appeal the earlier decision. The court needed to determine whether the appeal had any prospect of success and whether the application for leave to appeal was futile. This involved assessing the merits of the applicant's argument and whether the appeal was likely to lead to a different outcome from the one previously reached.

The court considered the grounds for the application and noted that Keane J had correctly found that no good reason had been shown for filing the proposed documents and that the application was an exercise in futility. The court emphasised that the applicant's attempt to re-agitate issues that had already been determined was not a viable course of action. Given these findings, the court concluded that the appeal had no prospect of success. Therefore, the application for leave to appeal was dismissed, and the Registrar was directed to draw up, sign, and seal an order dismissing the application.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established