In the Matter of An Application BY Trevor Kingsley Ferdinands for Leave to Appeal

Case [2023] HCASL 191

IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION BY TREVOR KINGSLEY FERDINANDS FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL
[2023] HCASL 191
A15/2023

  1. The applicant seeks leave to appeal under s 34(2) of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) from an order of Gageler CJ refusing leave under r 6.07.3 of the High Court Rules 2004 (Cth) to file an application commencing proceedings in this Court.[1] If leave were to be granted, any appeal would not have any prospects of success.

    [1]          In the matter of an application by Trevor Kingsley Ferdinands for leave to issue or file [2023] HCATrans    101.

  2. Leave to appeal is refused.

    Gleeson J

    Beech-Jones J

    7 December 2023


Details
AGLC
In the Matter Of An Application BY Trevor Kingsley Ferdinands for Leave To Appeal [2023] HCASL 191
Case
[2023] HCASL 191
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Trevor Kingsley Ferdinands made an application to the Supreme Court of Australia for leave to appeal a decision made by Gageler Chief Justice, who had previously refused leave to file an application in the High Court. The Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether it should grant Ferdinands the leave to appeal the decision. The central issue for the court was whether Ferdinands' appeal had any prospects of success, given that such leave was sought under section 34(2) of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) and rule 6.07.3 of the High Court Rules 2004 (Cth).

The court meticulously examined the merits of Ferdinands' case and concluded that there were no prospects of success if the appeal were to proceed. This conclusion was based on a thorough assessment of the merits and the likelihood of overturning the previous decision. The Supreme Court found that Ferdinands had not demonstrated a compelling reason for the appeal to be heard, considering the circumstances and the nature of the initial decision by Gageler Chief Justice.

As a result of this finding, the Supreme Court refused the application for leave to appeal. The justices, Gleeson and Beech-Jones, jointly decided on 7 December 2023, that the appeal did not meet the necessary threshold for success and thus dismissed the application. The decision underscores the stringent criteria required for an appeal to be considered, particularly in cases seeking leave to appeal decisions of the High Court.

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.