1 Dec 2022
The appeal is struck out because the appellant failed to pay the security for costs of $14,120 by the court‑directed due date and failed to provide verified evidence of impecuniosity to justify dispensing with security; under r 37(1) non‑payment mandates strike out and the Court granted the second respondent's strike‑out application.
14 Feb 2022
Brown J correctly applied the Reekie test and concluded the proposed appeal did not qualify as genuine public interest litigation and there was no persuasive evidence of impecuniosity; accordingly it was not in the interests of justice to grant dispensation or leave to appeal.
27 Jul 2020
The application for leave to appeal was dismissed because the applicant failed to demonstrate grounds for dispensation from security for costs or impecuniosity, the appeal was weak and raised no public interest, and therefore it was not an appeal a reasonable and solvent litigant would pursue.
12 Jun 2017
An extension of time to file the review was granted; the Registrar correctly applied Reekie and rationally concluded the appeal had some merit and that exceptional circumstances (appellant's impecuniosity, factual issues about contract signature/amendment and substantial exposure to a damages award) justified dispensing with security for costs; accordingly the review of the Registrar's decision was declined.
16 Feb 2017
Miller J correctly applied the Reekie principles: a preliminary evaluation that the appeal is in parts hopeless and in others not strong justifies refusing to waive security for costs; accordingly leave to appeal was not granted and costs were awarded to respondents.
8 Oct 2015
Registrar's decision upheld because appellant has substantial funds on deposit but has declined or failed to provide access or information about those funds and has not pursued the proper statutory route under the Protection of Personal and Property Rights Act 1988 to appoint a manager; impecuniosity was not established for the purposes of dispensing with security for costs and the appellant must pay the ordered security or face strike‑out.
20 Apr 2015
Leave to appeal directly to the Supreme Court was refused because Toogood J applied the settled Saxmere recusal test correctly and the applicants failed to demonstrate the exceptional circumstances under s14 of the Supreme Court Act 2003 necessary to justify a leapfrog appeal; the requirement to provide security for costs does not, without more, bar access to the Court of Appeal and dispensation may be addressed by appeal from the Registrar's refusal.
22 Dec 2008
The Registrar was entitled to refuse dispensation because the risk the appellant could not meet a costs order was higher than usual, but because the Official Assignee waived seeking security and the hearing was short the appropriate security was reduced to $4,740 payable by 20 February 2009.