15 Mar 2021
The extension of time was refused because the October 2020 request was correctly characterised as essentially the same as the earlier refused September 2020 request, amounted to an abuse of process, and any appeal would have been hopeless; accordingly the interests of justice required refusal of the extension.
30 Jul 2018
The court ordered a limited non-party affidavit under r 8.21 because the applicant demonstrated a substantive right to the records independent of the proceeding and there was genuine doubt whether additional documents remained with the non-party; the affidavit must state whether any documents not already handed over in 2015 remain and must disclose communications with the defendants relating to matters in issue, with the non-party entitled to actual and reasonable costs.
7 Nov 2017
The court ordered disclosure of the unredacted settlement agreement to counsel for the defendants and the third party in the first instance, and disclosure of the settlement sum and payment date to counsel and nominated insurers, on the condition of written undertakings of confidentiality, because disclosure to counsel with undertakings protects commercial sensitivity while enabling defendants to assess relevance and pursue further disclosure by leave of the court.
7 Sept 2012
Sections 16(4) and 16C(2) require that a judicial officer be satisfied, having regard to all the circumstances and on reasonable grounds, that physical access to a private dwelling or removal and retention of documents is reasonably required to enable the Commissioner's functions; applied here the unredacted affidavit provided sufficient grounds and the warrants were lawfully issued, so the appeal is dismissed.
21 Apr 2010
The Court granted special leave limited to the question whether litigation privilege ceases when the proceedings that gave rise to it and any related proceedings are complete, finding the issue arguable (in light of Minister of Justice v Blank) and of sufficient importance; all other grounds for leave were dismissed; consequential issues about disclosure and costs were reserved for determination on the substantive appeal.