S v D

S
v
D
[2015] HCASL 66
P2/2015

On 4 December 2012, Magistrate Duncanson made orders for the division of property following the breakdown of the applicant's de facto relationship with the respondent. Her Honour ordered that the respondent receive 60 per cent and the applicant receive 40 per cent of the assets.
An appeal to the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Western Australia (Buss, Newnes and Murphy JJA) was dismissed.
The applicant applies for special leave to appeal. The applicant does not have legal representation and his application falls to be determined under r 41.10 of the High Court Rules 2004 (Cth).
The applicant requires a short enlargement of time in which to file the application[1]. He has filed an affidavit providing a satisfactory explanation for the delay. However, for the reasons to be given, there is no utility in making an order dispensing with compliance with the Rules in this respect.
[1]High Court Rules 2004 (Cth), r 41.02.1.
The proposed grounds attack the concurrent factual findings below. No question of law suitable for the grant of special leave is identified nor does the application engage the interests of the administration of justice.
The application is dismissed.
Pursuant to r 41.10.5, we direct the Registrar to draw up, sign and seal an order dismissing the application.

V.M. Bell
6 May 2015
S.J. Gageler

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of S v D involves an applicant appealing a decision made by Magistrate Duncanson regarding the division of property following the breakdown of a de facto relationship with the respondent. Initially, the magistrate ordered that the respondent receive 60 per cent of the assets and the applicant receive 40 per cent. The applicant subsequently appealed to the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Western Australia, but the appeal was dismissed. The applicant has now applied for special leave to appeal to the High Court. The applicant is unrepresented and the application is being considered under rule 41.10 of the High Court Rules 2004.

The primary legal issue for the court was whether the applicant's application for special leave to appeal should be granted. The applicant sought a short enlargement of time to file the application, providing a satisfactory explanation for the delay. However, the court had to consider whether there was any utility in making an order dispensing with compliance with the rules in this respect. Additionally, the court needed to determine if the proposed grounds of appeal attacked the concurrent factual findings below, if there was any question of law suitable for the grant of special leave, and whether the application engaged the interests of the administration of justice.

The court found that there was no utility in making an order dispensing with compliance with the rules, and the proposed grounds of appeal did not attack the concurrent factual findings below. The court also noted that no question of law suitable for the grant of special leave was identified, nor did the application engage the interests of the administration of justice. Consequently, the application was dismissed. Pursuant to rule 41.10.5 of the High Court Rules 2004, the Registrar was directed to draw up, sign and seal an order dismissing the application. The decision was made on 6 May 2015 by V.M. Bell and S.J. Gageler.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established