24 Jun 1997
The court refused leave to appeal to the Privy Council because the point, although well identified (effect of trustee's disclaimer on capacity), was narrow, had been subjected to sufficient analysis in the Court of Appeal, and in the interlocutory context expedition weighed against granting leave.
11 Mar 1997
By majority the Court refused the application for leave to appeal to the Privy Council, holding that the issues did not raise questions of law of great general or public importance appropriate for referral under r.2(b) and that the matters were not suitable for resolution by their Lordships; the application for a stay was therefore not granted by the majority.
11 Sept 1996
By majority the motion for leave to appeal to the Privy Council was dismissed because the magistrate's quashing of the warrant and the order for return of the documents resolved the live controversy over the seized documents, making the proposed appeal academic; ICAC remains free to seek special leave directly from the Privy Council.
6 Sept 1996
The injunction granted in the court below was wrongly made because the plaintiffs failed to prove that the defendants had diverted a maturing business opportunity meriting equitable relief; the plaintiffs succeeded only to the extent of nominal damages for breach of contractual duties as employees; accordingly the claim against D3 is dismissed, the defendants are granted leave to apply to the High Court for an inquiry as to damages arising from the injunction, and specific costs orders follow; the plaintiffs' motion for leave to appeal to the Privy Council under Rule 2(b) is dismissed.
1 Feb 1996
The Court held that the remaining question—whether s83A empowered the Urban Council by by-law to render itinerant hawking illegal—is a question of great general or public importance under Rule 2(b) of the 1909 Order in Council, and accordingly granted leave to appeal to Her Majesty in Council.
19 May 1995
The single Justice of Appeal must be taken to have considered the acknowledged factor of prejudice; appellants failed to demonstrate an error in principle or that discretion was not exercised, and the demonstrated prejudice to the respondent warranted refusal of the extension; therefore the appellate court will not interfere and the application is dismissed.
29 Mar 1995
The Court held the applicant was not entitled to appeal as of right because the civil right involved (a rational assessment of penalty arising from disciplinary compulsory retirement) could not be quantified to meet the $500,000 statutory threshold and no evidence established such value; furthermore the Court declined to exercise its discretion under r.2(b) because no question of great general or public importance or other fit reason to refer the matter to the Privy Council was identified; accordingly leave and extension of time were refused by majority.
20 Jan 1995
The court held that the computation rule excluding the day of the judgment meant service on 10 November fell within the 14 day period and CA 67/94 was in time; the court exercised its discretion under Rule 3A(1) to extend time by one day for CA 66/94 because the late filing resulted from an acknowledged filing error and caused no prejudice; applicants failed to prove the value of the land for an appeal as of right but the Court, in its discretion under Rule 2(b), granted leave to appeal to the Privy Council because the appeals raise questions of law of great public importance (including const…
20 Jan 1995
The Court held that time is computed excluding the day of judgment so service on 10 November was within the 14 day period for CA 67/94; it exercised its discretion under Rule 3A(1) to extend time for filing in CA 66/94 by one day because the late filing resulted from an honest clerical mistake that caused no prejudice to respondents; the questions raised are of sufficient public importance to warrant leave under Rule 2(b) to appeal to the Privy Council; leave was granted subject to conditions including provision of security for costs and preparation and dispatch of the Record; a stay of execu…
26 Oct 1994
The appellants had no appeal as of right because their contractual damages claim was unquantified and not shown to meet the $500,000 threshold; the court declined to exercise its discretion to grant leave under Rule 2(b) because no question of great general or public importance was raised; leave to appeal to Her Majesty in Council was refused and costs were ordered against the appellants.