Mao v BT Funds Management Limited

Case [2022] HCASL 100


MAO

v

BT FUNDS MANAGEMENT LIMITED & ORS

[2022] HCASL 100
S20/2022

  1. The applicant requires an extension of time to seek special leave to appeal the decision of the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of New South Wales. There is no reason to doubt the correctness of the Court of Appeal's decision. Further, it would not be in the interests of the administration of justice to grant special leave to appeal. Thus, there is no utility in granting the extension of time.

  2. 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.

S.J Gageler J.S Gleeson
12 May 2022
Details
AGLC
Mao v BT Funds Management Limited [2022] HCASL 100
Case
[2022] HCASL 100
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Mao v BT Funds Management Limited is a case involving an application for an extension of time to seek special leave to appeal a decision made by the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The applicant, Mao, seeks to challenge the Court of Appeal's ruling, however, the Court found that there is no reason to doubt the correctness of the decision made by the Court of Appeal. Additionally, the Court found that it would not be in the interests of the administration of justice to grant special leave to appeal.

The legal issues in this case primarily revolve around whether there is a valid reason to doubt the correctness of the Court of Appeal's decision, and if granting special leave to appeal would be in the interests of the administration of justice. The Court was also required to determine whether granting an extension of time to seek special leave to appeal would be appropriate in this case.

In reaching its decision, the Court found that there is no reason to doubt the correctness of the Court of Appeal's decision, and that granting special leave to appeal would not be in the interests of the administration of justice. As a result, the Court determined that there is no utility in granting the extension of time. The Court relied on rule 41.08.1 of the High Court Rules 2004 (Cth) to dismiss the application. The Court's decision was based on a careful consideration of the relevant legal principles and the facts of the case.

Pursuant to rule 41.08.1 of the High Court Rules 2004 (Cth), the Court directed the Registrar to draw up, sign and seal an order dismissing the application. The Court's decision was made on May 12, 2022.

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.