8 Dec 2025
Leave to apply for judicial review is granted on the papers; the parties must liaise to propose jointly agreed directions to lead to a substantive hearing with a tight timetable; liberty to apply; all questions of costs are reserved.
1 Sept 2025
Leave to apply for judicial review is granted on the papers and the court sets a detailed timetable and directions for filing of evidence, limits on further evidence and submissions, electronic bundle requirements, and fixes the substantive hearing date, with all questions of costs reserved for that hearing.
15 Oct 2024
Leave to apply for judicial review was granted. The decisive order is that the parties must liaise and propose jointly agreed directions to bring the matter to a substantive hearing (with reference to Practice Direction 26.1 paras 8–13); specific procedural steps and deadlines for service and issuance of proceedings are imposed and questions of costs are reserved.
10 Sept 2024
The court granted leave to apply for judicial review because the applicant demonstrated arguable grounds sufficient to justify a substantive hearing and ordered the parties to liaise and propose directions to enable that hearing, with costs reserved.
30 Aug 2024
Leave to apply for judicial review was granted and the court ordered the parties to liaise and propose jointly agreed directions to prepare for a substantive hearing; procedural deadlines for service and issue of originating process were imposed and questions of costs were reserved.
27 Jun 2024
Leave to apply for judicial review was granted; the court directed the parties to liaise and propose jointly agreed directions to prepare for a substantive hearing, referred them to Practice Direction 26.1, reserved costs and imposed statutory time limits for service and issuing originating process.
23 Nov 2023
Leave to apply for judicial review was granted on the papers because the applicant's case was sufficiently arguable to merit a substantive hearing; the Court directed the parties to liaise and propose jointly agreed directions to facilitate a substantive hearing and reserved costs and liberty to apply.
28 Mar 2023
Having inspected the plaintiff's materials and concluded they contained legal professional privilege and without prejudice content directly relevant to issues in the trial, the judge found both the subjective and objective recusal tests satisfied and therefore recused from hearing the trial; the judge further held the plaintiff had not made a voluntary, informed and unequivocal waiver of privilege and ordered expungement and case management measures, while reserving costs pending further inquiry.
13 Jan 2023
The applicant failed to establish any factual basis or credible evidence that would give rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias or unfairness by the presiding judge; the allegations were baseless and therefore the recusal application is dismissed and the judge will continue to hear the case.
28 Sept 2022
Recorder held reserving costs on dismissal of the O.14 application was within judicial discretion given the imminence of trial, potential reuse of materials, and taxation difficulties; the proposed appeal had no reasonable prospects and would waste judicial resources; leave to appeal refused and the discrete application was dismissed with costs ordered.