Legal Practitioner v The Council Of the Act Law Society

LEGAL PRACTITIONER
v
THE COUNCIL OF THE ACT LAW SOCIETY
[2017] HCASL 2
C16/2016

The applicant requires an extension of time, but it would be futile to grant the extension which is sought.
The applicant has not identified a question of law sufficient to warrant a grant of special leave to appeal and otherwise advances no arguable ground of appeal against the decision of the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory (Robinson AJ) that the applicant pay security for costs of two appeals the applicant had filed in the Court of Appeal. The application concerns a matter of practice and procedure and an appeal to this Court would enjoy no prospect of success.
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
2 February 2017 M.M. Gordon

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In this case, the applicant sought an extension of time from the High Court of Australia to file a special leave application in relation to an earlier decision by the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory. The applicant, a legal practitioner, was dissatisfied with the decision of Robinson AJ, who had ordered the applicant to pay security for costs in relation to two appeals the applicant had previously filed. The applicant argued that they needed more time to prepare and file the special leave application, but the Court of Appeal had already dismissed the applicant's application for an extension of time.

The legal issues before the High Court were whether the applicant had identified a question of law sufficient to warrant a grant of special leave to appeal, and whether there were any arguable grounds of appeal against the decision of the Court of Appeal to order the applicant to pay security for costs. The High Court considered that the applicant had not identified a question of law that would warrant special leave to appeal, and that the appeal to this Court would enjoy no prospect of success.

The High Court held that the application for an extension of time was futile and that the applicant had not advanced any arguable ground of appeal against the decision of the Court of Appeal. The Court also noted that the matter was one of practice and procedure, and that an appeal to this Court would not be successful. Therefore, the application for special leave to appeal was dismissed, and the Court directed the Registrar to draw up, sign and seal an order dismissing the application.

The final orders of the Court were that the application for special leave to appeal be dismissed, and that the Registrar draw up, sign and seal an order to that effect. The Court also noted that costs of the application should be paid by the applicant.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established