1 Nov 2023
The application for a stay of execution was struck out as an abuse of process because the applicant did not appeal the prior strike‑out or costs judgments and the time to appeal has expired, meaning the costs orders are final; there is no realistic risk of substantial miscarriage of justice, and allegations in a separate undetermined proceeding cannot alter liability under the final costs orders.
8 Nov 2022
The proceeding was struck out as an abuse of process because the claims had been finally determined in consolidated proceedings (so collateral attack was impermissible), Mr Wu had no standing to resurrect or re-litigate Ms Fan's claims, and the sale of the property occurred pursuant to judicial sale directions (not under pt 17 enforcement requiring r17.72 notice), rendering the application meritless and plainly abusive.
25 Aug 2022
The application for recall is dismissed because the applicant failed to demonstrate the exceptional circumstances required to recall a delivered judgment under Saxmere and was impermissibly attempting to relitigate issues already decided; the alleged omission of authorities did not justify recall as those cases had been referred in earlier submissions.
11 Feb 2022
The recall application was dismissed because the applicant failed to meet the established criteria for recalling a Court of Appeal judgment; the appropriate remedy to challenge the decision is to seek leave from the Supreme Court.
23 Oct 2020
Leave to appeal out of time was declined because the convictions involved breaches of lawfully imposed ESO conditions (electronic monitoring or residential curfew) and the existence of unlawful 24/7 monitoring did not amount to an objectively reasonable excuse that would constitute a reasonably arguable defence to those breaches; no substantial injustice justified revisiting the convictions.
20 May 2020
The application to review the Deputy Registrar's decision and the application to recall the Court's 18 March 2020 judgment were dismissed because the applicant failed to demonstrate any legislative amendment, new binding authority, procedural failure by counsel, or other very special reason; the applicant only repeated arguments already considered and dismissed.
19 Jun 2019
The Court held Edwards J was correct to dismiss the applications because Downs J's substantive judgment had been delivered and was the subject of an appeal, rendering the High Court functus officio in relation to those matters; accordingly the High Court lacked jurisdiction to grant the particular discovery sought and the appeal against that decision was dismissed.
19 Dec 2018
The application for leave to appeal was declined because the proposed grounds did not meet the high threshold for leave: they did not raise questions capable of bona fide and serious argument nor involve sufficient public or private importance to outweigh the cost and delay, and the courts below were correct in their conclusions concerning adjournment, trust, and relationship property.
16 Feb 2018
The application for recall was declined because the applicant's allegations were unsubstantial and did not satisfy the narrow categories permitting recall of a civil judgment; prior appellate consideration that the proposed appeal was fatally flawed reinforced the refusal.
9 Feb 2017
The Supreme Court had no jurisdiction because the High Court decision was final under s 95(2)(b) of the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services Act 2006, which displaces the general right of appeal under the Judicature Act; accordingly the application for leave to appeal is dismissed and costs are awarded to the third respondents.