18 Oct 2021
The applicant failed to produce sufficient evidence of an immediate medical necessity or other exceptional circumstances to justify judicial interference with the trustee's decision under s83; the prior dismissal of the identical application and the need to protect creditors' interests required dismissal of the application.
15 Dec 2011
Because the disputed authenticity issues had been previously determined against the defence in A2608, the new handwriting material was raised too late after notice to hand down, and the plaintiff acted as a nominee of a previously adjudicated party, the attempt to re-open the issues constituted an abuse of process; therefore the court maintained the direction to hand down the earlier decision and its conclusions and would have refused any such belated application.
30 Sept 2010
The applications for leave to appeal were dismissed because they were brought after a long unexplained delay and were frivolous and vexatious, constituting an abuse of the court process by attempting to re-litigate matters already finally decided; there were no arguable grounds to grant leave.