3 Jun 2009
The application for a certificate under s32(2) is dismissed because the court was not satisfied this was an appropriate case to grant a certificate; the court reiterated that s25(1) concerns the source of property rather than its intended use and noted potential conflicting provisions and authorities were not placed before it but that observation did not affect the decision.
30 Oct 2008
The court refused certification because the issues raised were governed by the established Browne v Dunn principle and the material before the court raised an argument of alleged misapplication of that principle rather than a novel point of law of great and general importance.
7 Aug 2007
The court concluded that the statutory threshold for granting a certificate under section 32(2) was not met in respect of the contested point about individual intention for statutory conspiracy and accordingly declined to grant a certificate; the application was refused.
18 Feb 2000
Because the applicants conceded that the conduct remained unlawful and that the legislature could not have intended to render such conduct unenforceable, and because the Court found the true intent of the transitional provisions to permit prosecution for pre-abolition conspiracy, there was no point of law of great and general importance to certify; accordingly the application for a certificate under s.32(2) was refused.