29 Oct 2019
Leave to appeal was granted because the High Court's treatment of the Henderson v Henderson principle is arguable: it may have over-emphasised plaintiffs' right of access to the Court and thereby confined application of the 'could and should' test; on balance the interests of justice warranted permitting an appeal from the strike-out refusal in the 2018 proceedings.
17 Apr 2018
The application to dispense with security for costs was declined because the applicant failed to prove impecuniosity or inability to raise the $6,600 (assets existed, including trust-held assets and personal items), had not sought legal aid, and the cross-appeal had little merit; it would be unjust to compel the respondent to defend the judgment without security.
27 Oct 2017
Court concluded there was not credible evidence that the plaintiff was unable to meet an award of costs given the 2015 inheritance and the undertaking regarding the estate; alternatively, even if threshold met, it would not be just to order security because the plaintiff's claim is arguable and the public interest in access to the courts outweighs the defendant's limited risk, therefore the application for security for costs was declined.
16 Sept 2014
The Registrar's decision refusing to dispense with security for costs was lawful and should be upheld because the appeal would not be sensibly pursued by a solvent litigant, an alternative remedy (review by a Supreme Court judge) exists, and the Registrar had no disqualifying conflict of interest; accordingly security of $5,880 is payable.
20 Dec 2006
The High Court cannot, in case management or by adjournment, compel the Commissioner to implement internal non‑statutory administrative dispute resolution procedures that Parliament did not make mandatory; it is inappropriate to deny or delay access to the courts on the ground that a party has not undertaken a pre‑litigation administrative process.