31 Mar 2023
Applying s63A and the established appellate standard of deference to discretionary decisions, the court found neither party demonstrated a reasonable prospect of success nor other compelling reasons to hear the appeals; the alleged factual errors were either misreadings of the judgment or immaterial to the discretionary outcome, so both leave applications were refused and a provisional costs order was made.
22 Jul 2020
The Court allowed the appeal because the trial judge materially erred by failing to give real effect to the children’s clear wishes, by treating an application for removal for education as a permanent relocation requiring unrealistic safeguards (notably visa/permanent residency), by improperly discounting the SWO’s recommendation without cogent reasons, and by making contradictory findings; those errors rendered the exercise of discretion plainly wrong and justified rehearing the discretion and granting leave to remove the children to Vancouver for education with detailed access provisions.
19 Sept 1995
The appeal was allowed because the magistrate's reasons did not sufficiently demonstrate she approached the forfeiture discretion neutrally and analysed whether the appellants were innocent; the proper practice is to start from a neutral position, require parties to prove disputed facts on the balance of probabilities, and decline forfeiture where goods belong to innocent parties, so the forfeiture order was set aside and remitted for fresh consideration.
27 Oct 1993
Given the strong public interest in ensuring a major criminal trial proceeds with all material evidence available, and the reasonable prospect that the respondents could give evidence within the next 12 weeks, the court properly exercised its discretion to order continued detention under s32(4)(b) for a limited period (21 days from 8 October 1993); the detention power is confined to a period reasonably necessary to achieve the purpose and, on the facts, continued limited detention was proportionate.
27 Oct 1993
Given the substantial public interest in ensuring an important murder trial proceeds with all relevant evidence and the realistic prospect that the named respondents could give their evidence within the next 12 weeks, the court lawfully exercised its discretion to order detention under s.32(4)(b) for a limited period; the detention was proportionate and reasonably necessary and therefore lawful, and the Attorney General's applications were granted for up to 21 days from 8 October 1993.
7 Oct 1993
Where prior valid detentions/authorisations existed and there was a real prospect that the witnesses could give their evidence within a reasonably short and defined period, the public interest in ensuring availability of material evidence for a major criminal trial outweighed the respondents' individual liberty interests; accordingly detention under s32(4)(b) for a limited further period (not exceeding 21 days from 8 October 1993) was lawful and should be granted, subject to fresh consideration thereafter.
15 Nov 1988
The Court refused leave to appeal to the Privy Council because the matters raised were not of great general or public importance nor otherwise exceptional; it upheld the trial judge's discretionary refusal to order security for costs after finding sufficient evidence of an overarching fraud affecting the Plaintiff and its parent company.