16 Oct 2020
Because the applicant failed in his application and no proper or supported basis was put forward to refuse or reduce costs (no sworn affidavit or challenge to quantum), the court must apply the rules and award the claimed costs and disbursements to the Minister.
21 Mar 2019
The Deputy Registrar's refusal to waive the filing fees was upheld because the applicant failed to show the proposed appeal or underlying proceedings involved a genuine matter of public interest sufficient to meet the regulatory criteria and the application was effectively futile given unpaid fees/security and procedural defects; accordingly the review application was dismissed.
5 May 2015
The application for leave to appeal was dismissed because the decision under challenge was made under s61A(1) of the Judicature Act 1908 and the correct remedy was review by three judges of the Court of Appeal under s61A(2); it was not in the interests of justice for the Supreme Court to hear the appeal.
29 Jun 2007
The Registrar did not err in sealing the 30 April 2007 judgment in response to the Court's explicit request in the 15 June 2007 judgment; the appellant failed to take the steps required by r 52(3), r 51(4) explained the earlier delay, and the sealing therefore stands.
21 Mar 2007
The costs award was made on the mistaken assumption the applicant was not legally aided; because the judgment was unperfected and this mistake constitutes a 'very special reason' under Horowhenua County v Nash, the Court recalled and reissued the judgment deleting the costs award and dismissed additional recall applications as not disclosing a basis for recall.
25 Jan 2001
Leave to appeal denied because the legal questions raised were conclusively addressed by the Court of Appeal in Watton: the appellant was a s59 claimant and accordingly was not entitled to weekly compensation up to age 65, the issues were not matters of law requiring further High Court determination, and the decision in question was not a revision under s67A(1)(b).