25 Oct 2023
The application for an amicus curiae and the six month stay was declined because the applicant had filed detailed pleadings and submissions demonstrating he was capable of advancing the appeal; therefore appointment of an amicus or a stay was unnecessary and the Court will proceed to consider striking out the appeal on the papers under r 44A.
28 Sept 2023
The application was declined because the proposed enquiries would elicit intrinsic jury deliberations barred by s 76(1), and the applicant failed to meet the very narrow s 76(3) exceptional circumstances threshold; the foreperson's general, non-specific assertions of prejudice, pressure and 'horse trading' did not provide a sufficiently compelling reason to override the public interest in secrecy, finality and juror protection.
22 Jun 2017
The Court exercised its discretion to appoint amicus because the appeal raises a nuanced and novel legal question of public importance concerning credibility assessment in refugee determinations, the applicant is effectively unrepresented and unable to secure counsel or legal aid, and the appointment will materially assist the Court; the Court defined the role of amicus and issued case management directions including that the application to adduce further evidence be determined as a preliminary issue and that no security for costs be ordered.
30 Jul 2015
The Court accepted the professionally prepared partnership accounts showing the $500,000 advance was made to and forgiven by the partnership and refused to allow a late re-pleading that the advance was a personal debt absent timely evidence; accordingly the Waterview section was transferred to Mr S valued at $240,000, a $40,000 provision for unpaid partnership debts was retained for three months, and the partnership's Eastpak shares were ordered sold with proceeds held for equal distribution.
18 Nov 2013
Application to appoint an amicus was dismissed because the applicant is no longer bankrupt and must fund his own litigation; the applicant had won on the contested point below making the appeal problematic, and the applicant's history and mental health mean the court will not lightly appoint counsel as amicus or assume funding for such assistance.
26 Apr 2013
The review was dismissed: the Associate Judge's order for security for costs was upheld because the plaintiff's claim appeared to have little chance of success on the evidence (notably deficiencies in proving market value and causation), there was no persuasive evidence linking the defendants' conduct to the plaintiff's impecuniosity, and the $80,000 security sum fell within the Court's discretionary assessment of sufficient security for likely defendants' costs.
26 Mar 2009
The Court did not decide the substantive question whether priority should be rule‑based or left to discretion; instead it directed further argument on that preliminary question, appointed an amicus curiae to assist, and directed the Registrar to notify and arrange a hearing including potential intervention by the Attorney‑General.
5 Mar 2008
Leave to appeal dismissed because the amicus acted at the applicant's request effectively as counsel and, given the strength of the Crown case and absence of any realistic possibility of miscarriage of justice from the alleged errors, there was no basis for appellate intervention.
5 Mar 2008
Leave to appeal was denied because the appointment of amicus did not occur contrary to the accused's wishes (amicus acted with the applicant's request and effectively as counsel), and given the strength of the Crown case and the Court of Appeal's finding that any deficiencies in jury directions did not raise a real possibility of miscarriage of justice, there was no arguable ground of general or public importance or substantial miscarriage warranting leave.