A leading Australian legal academic has argued that the High Court should grant special leave to hear the appeal arising from the Giggle v Tickle litigation, saying the case raises questions of national legal importance.

The article, published in the ABC's Religion & Ethics section, does not argue whether Sall Grover or Roxanne Tickle should ultimately succeed. Instead, it focuses on whether Australia's highest court should have the opportunity to consider the legal issues involved.

The distinction is significant.

When deciding applications for special leave, the High Court is not determining who should win the case. Rather, it considers whether the matter raises questions of sufficient public importance or legal principle to justify a further appeal.

According to the article, the Full Federal Court's interpretation of the Sex Discrimination Act has implications extending beyond the parties involved in the litigation. The author argues these broader legal questions justify consideration by the High Court.

If special leave is granted, the Court will hear detailed legal argument before deciding whether the Full Federal Court correctly interpreted the law.

If leave is refused, the existing judgment will stand as the final determination of the case.

Applications for special leave are granted in only a relatively small proportion of cases, making the decision itself an important stage in Australia's legal system.

The High Court has not yet announced whether it will hear the appeal.

Whatever the eventual outcome, the latest commentary highlights that legal experts continue to regard the case as raising issues extending beyond the interests of the parties themselves.

For now, the focus remains on a procedural question: should Australia's highest court examine the issues, or should the Full Federal Court's judgment remain the final word?