MICHAEL ANTHONY GRIFFIN
v
COUNCIL OF THE LAW SOCIETY OF NSW
[2016] HCASL 330
S227/2016
No reason is advanced why the ordinary appeal process should be fragmented by the removal of this matter into this Court. No urgency attends its determination. The application for removal should be dismissed with costs.
Pursuant to r 26.07.1, we direct the Registrar to draw up, sign and seal an order dismissing the application.
S.M. Kiefel
14 December 2016P.A. Keane
Details
- AGLC
- Michael Anthony Griffin v Council of the Law Society of NSW [2016] HCASL 330
- Case
- [2016] HCASL 330
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The case before the court involved Michael Anthony Griffin, who was appealing against the Council of the Law Society of New South Wales. The crux of the dispute lay in the application by Griffin to have his appeal transferred from the New South Wales Court of Appeal to the High Court of Australia. Griffin's application sought to bypass the usual appeal process and have the High Court directly hear his case. The Council of the Law Society of New South Wales opposed the application on the grounds that there was no justification for deviating from the standard appeal process and no urgency in the matter's resolution.
The primary legal issue the court had to address was whether there were exceptional circumstances that warranted the removal of Griffin's appeal from the Court of Appeal to the High Court. The court needed to determine if the application for removal met the stringent criteria for such an extraordinary step. The key consideration was whether there was a compelling reason to fragment the ordinary appeal process, and if the matter required the immediate attention of the High Court.
The High Court, in dismissing the application, found that no such exceptional circumstances existed. The court held that the application did not meet the threshold for removal as there was no urgency in determining the matter, and the ordinary appeal process was sufficient. The High Court also noted that the application itself did not provide any compelling reason for the matter to be heard directly by the High Court. Consequently, the court ruled that the application should be dismissed, and ordered that the Registrar prepare, sign, and seal an order to this effect. The court further determined that Griffin should bear the costs of the application.
The primary legal issue the court had to address was whether there were exceptional circumstances that warranted the removal of Griffin's appeal from the Court of Appeal to the High Court. The court needed to determine if the application for removal met the stringent criteria for such an extraordinary step. The key consideration was whether there was a compelling reason to fragment the ordinary appeal process, and if the matter required the immediate attention of the High Court.
The High Court, in dismissing the application, found that no such exceptional circumstances existed. The court held that the application did not meet the threshold for removal as there was no urgency in determining the matter, and the ordinary appeal process was sufficient. The High Court also noted that the application itself did not provide any compelling reason for the matter to be heard directly by the High Court. Consequently, the court ruled that the application should be dismissed, and ordered that the Registrar prepare, sign, and seal an order to this effect. The court further determined that Griffin should bear the costs of the application.
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.