McIver v Australian Capital Territory

MCIVER

AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

[2025] HCADisp 78

C3/2025

The applicant requires an extension of time within which to seek special leave to appeal from a judgment of the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory (Mossop, Loukas-Karlsson and Rangiah JJ), in which the Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory (Curtin A-J) concerning an application for an extension of time under s 40C(3) of the Human Rights Act 2004 (ACT).
The proposed appeal does not expose any legal issue suitable for determination by this Court and, in any event, lacks sufficient prospects of success to warrant the grant of special leave to appeal. It would therefore be futile to grant the extension of time that is sought.
Special leave to appeal is refused with costs.

Gageler CJ
Gordon J
Edelman J
Steward J
Gleeson J
Jagot J
Beech-Jones J

3 April 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of McIver v Australian Capital Territory, the applicant sought an extension of time to seek special leave to appeal from a decision of the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory. The original appeal had been dismissed by the Court of Appeal, which had in turn upheld a decision of the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory concerning an application for an extension of time under the Human Rights Act 2004 (ACT). The High Court was asked to grant the applicant an extension of time to seek special leave to appeal its decision. The central issue before the High Court was whether the proposed appeal presented a legal issue of sufficient merit and likelihood of success to warrant the grant of an extension of time. The Court had to determine if the appeal had any prospect of success, and whether it would be futile to grant the extension sought.

The Court considered the merits of the proposed appeal and concluded that it did not expose any legal issue suitable for determination by the High Court. Furthermore, the Court found that the appeal lacked sufficient prospects of success to warrant the grant of special leave to appeal. The Court held that to grant the extension of time sought would be futile, as the proposed appeal was unlikely to succeed. As a result, the application for an extension of time was refused. The Court also ordered that the applicant pay costs.

In summary, the High Court refused the applicant's request for an extension of time to seek special leave to appeal from the decision of the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory. The Court found that the proposed appeal did not present a legal issue of sufficient merit and likelihood of success to warrant the grant of an extension of time, and that to grant the extension sought would be futile. The Court ordered that the applicant pay costs.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established