14 Jul 2022
Applicants failed to establish any statutory ground for annulment: adjudications were properly made, there is insufficient evidence that bankruptcy debts were fully paid or that there has been a substantial change in financial circumstances, and the near 19‑year delay meant the court would in any event likely refuse annulment in the exercise of its discretion.
9 Mar 2022
Application dismissed because service was effected in accordance with court orders for substituted service, the applicant's evidence that she did not receive the documents was rejected as not credible, there was no demonstrated arguable defence or material procedural defect that would have altered the outcome, and delay and commercial finality weighed against annulment.
10 May 2021
The Court dismissed the leave application because none of the proposed grounds were reasonably arguable under the statutory appeal criteria: the trial judge correctly applied the law on severance and gave adequate directions; issues about Witness A's incentives, corroboration and credibility were matters the jury could assess and did not render the verdict unsafe; references to other alleged crimes were tactical and not shown to be prejudicial; and the applicant's prolonged and inordinate delay (with resulting witness unavailability) compounded prejudice, removing any basis to grant a reheari…
31 Jul 2019
An extension of time and leave to appeal were granted because recently completed, substantial and empirically based expert evidence could not have been produced earlier, raises issues of general and case-specific importance about the reliability and contamination of child interview evidence, and the interests of justice require those issues to be ventilated on appeal despite the delay; accordingly the approved ground of appeal is whether a miscarriage of justice occurred.
27 Jul 2006
Leave to appeal out of time was granted because the Court's prior indication that an application would be entertained, combined with the Official Assignee's lack of notice and prompt action once aware, amounted to an unusual combination of circumstances that outweighed the delay and prejudice concerns, justifying exercise of discretion under r 29(4).