Jonval Builders Pty Limited & Ors v Commissioner for Fair Trading

JONVAL BUILDERS PTY LIMITED & ORS
v
COMMISSIONER FOR FAIR TRADING
[2021] HCASL 32
S196/2020

The applicants seek special leave to appeal from part of a judgment of the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of New South Wales (Leeming JA, Bathurst CJ and Meagher JA agreeing), dismissing an appeal from a decision of the Supreme Court of New South Wales (Rothman J), relevantly ordering the applicants to pay compensation pursuant to s 237 of the Australian Consumer Law (and its predecessor in New South Wales, s 72 of the Fair Trading Act 1987 (NSW)).
The applicants require an extension of time within which to seek special leave to appeal, but because there is no reason to doubt the correctness of the decision of the Court of Appeal, it would be futile to grant the extension sought.
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 with costs.

V.M. Bell
25 February 2021 S.H.P. Steward

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Jonval Builders Pty Limited and others, in this case, sought special leave to appeal from a judgment made by the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of New South Wales. This judgment dismissed an appeal from a decision of the Supreme Court of New South Wales, which had ordered the applicants to pay compensation pursuant to a specific section of the Australian Consumer Law. The applicants were requesting an extension of time within which to seek special leave to appeal. The central issue in this case was whether the applicants should be granted an extension of time to appeal to the High Court, given the nature of the decision and the circumstances surrounding the case.

The court had to determine whether the decision of the Court of Appeal was so clearly correct that granting the extension sought would be futile. In this case, there was no reason to doubt the correctness of the Court of Appeal's decision, and therefore, the court found that granting the extension would be futile. The High Court considered the matter and concluded that it would not be appropriate to grant the extension requested by the applicants.

The High Court, in accordance with Rule 41.08.1 of the High Court Rules 2004 (Cth), directed the Registrar to draw up, sign and seal an order dismissing the application with costs. The court found that the circumstances of the case did not warrant the granting of special leave to appeal, and therefore the application was dismissed. The applicants' request for an extension of time to seek special leave to appeal was denied, and the matter was closed.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established