In the Matter Of An Application BY Ms Monfort for Special Leave To Appeal

Case [2024] HCASL 171


IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION BY MS MONFORT FOR SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL
[2024] HCASL 171
B22/2024

  1. The applicant requires an extension of time within which to seek special leave to appeal from the whole of the judgment of the Appellate Jurisdiction of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 1) (Aldridge, Austin and Harper JJ) of 8 March 2024. The amended application for special leave to appeal has no prospects of success. It would therefore be futile to grant the extension of time that is sought.

  2. Special leave to appeal is refused.

    Gordon J
    Steward J 

    8 August 2024

Details
AGLC
In the Matter Of An Application BY Ms Monfort for Special Leave To Appeal [2024] HCASL 171
Case
[2024] HCASL 171
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter involves an application by Ms Monfort for an extension of time to seek special leave to appeal against a judgment made by the Appellate Jurisdiction of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia on 8 March 2024. The judgment was delivered by Justices Aldridge, Austin, and Harper. Ms Monfort seeks to challenge the entirety of the decision through an application for special leave to appeal, but she has not yet met the necessary requirements to do so. The amended application for special leave to appeal has been deemed to have no prospects of success, which is a key consideration for the court in determining whether to grant the extension of time requested.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether Ms Monfort's amended application for special leave to appeal had any prospects of success. The court needed to determine if granting an extension of time would serve any useful purpose, given that the application itself was unlikely to succeed. The court also considered whether the extension of time would be in the interests of justice, given the futility of the application. Ultimately, the court was tasked with balancing the principles of justice and efficiency in the appellate process against the applicant's right to seek a review of the decision.

In its decision, the court found that the amended application for special leave to appeal had no prospects of success. The court concluded that the application was essentially futile, meaning that granting an extension of time would not serve any useful purpose. The court held that it would be inappropriate to grant the extension of time under these circumstances. Consequently, the application for special leave to appeal was refused. The court's decision emphasised the importance of ensuring that the appellate process remains efficient and that the court's resources are not wasted on applications that have no reasonable chance of success.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.