21 Mar 2023
The High Court has no jurisdiction to hear an appeal against a District Court judge's decision declining review of infringement offences because s237 applies only to convictions and s124 does not confer such jurisdiction (being equivalent to the repealed s72); established authorities (Underhill, Rafiq) govern and require dismissal.
31 May 2018
Judge Tompkins lawfully refused to accept the charging documents under s 26 because the new documents were substantively similar to earlier charging documents already rejected by the District Court; there was no breach of s 110 and no factual error warranting review; therefore the judicial review application is dismissed.
18 Nov 2013
The judicial review was dismissed because the District Court Judge properly exercised discretion in refusing leave for a belated interlocutory application once the matter was set down, there was adequate notice and no prejudice justifying adjournment, the evidence supported entry of judgment for unpaid rates, and allegations of conspiracy or fraud were unsubstantiated and irrelevant to the review.
29 Aug 2001
Costs were not awarded on a full indemnity basis. The Court found the second respondent's legal and medical expenses were reasonably and properly incurred and pivotal to deciding the appeal. The appellant, as unsuccessful party, must meet specified medical disbursements (Dr Wigley fee $2,643.75 and any reasonable fee for Ms Chambers) and contribute $3,000 toward the second respondent's $4,500 legal costs. The first respondent, having had a lesser role, must contribute $750 toward those legal costs and continue to bear $1,790.38 incurred for the second respondent's attendance on Dr Turner. The…
26 Jul 2001
The appeal was struck out because the appellant failed to prosecute the appeal and did not respond to the Registrar's notice giving a deadline, thereby justifying strike out for want of prosecution.