Singh v Hicks and Nissan [2021] NSWCA 80

Singh v Hicks and Nissan [2021] NSWCA 80

The application for extension of time and leave to appeal was dismissed because the delay was significant and unexplained, the applicant did not have a fairly arguable case, and the orders of the District Court confirming the Local Court convictions render the proposed appeal futile. The grounds raised do not involve an issue of principle or general importance, nor demonstrate injustice beyond what is merely arguable.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
10 May 2021
Procedural Posture
Appeal – Application for Leave / Application for Extension of Time and Leave to Appeal – Court of Appeal
Outcome
Application dismissed; extension of time refused; applicant to pay costs.
Legal Topics
['extension of Time' 'leave to Appeal' 'summary Dismissal' 'bail Variation' 'particulars of Charge']
['criminal Law' 'procedure' 'appeals'] ['extension of Time' 'leave to Appeal' 'summary Dismissal' 'bail Variation' 'particulars of Charge']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Appeal – Application for Leave / Application for Extension of Time and Leave to Appeal – Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Court should extend time for filing a summons seeking leave to appeal' 'Whether proposed appeal raises any issue of principle or general importance' 'Whether the Local Court should have furnished particulars of the conduct the subject of charge' 'Whether District Court orders superseded earlier orders and preclude appeal']

Ratio Decidendi

The application for extension of time and leave to appeal was dismissed because the delay was significant and unexplained, the applicant did not have a fairly arguable case, and the orders of the District Court confirming the Local Court convictions render the proposed appeal futile. The grounds raised do not involve an issue of principle or general importance, nor demonstrate injustice beyond what is merely arguable.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed; extension of time refused; applicant to pay costs.

Orders

  • ['‘NSW Police’ be removed as the respondent and Robert Hicks and John Nissan be substituted as first and second respondents.' 'Refuse to extend time for the filing of the summons seeking leave to appeal to 22 January 2021.' 'Summons seeking leave to appeal be dismissed.' "Applicant to pay the respondents' costs."]