22 Feb 2021
Leave to appeal was refused because there was more than ample time for the appellant to obtain funding, legal representation and prepare for the appeal, and therefore no issue or prejudice existed that could justify intervention by the Court of Appeal.
11 Sept 2020
The Court has no jurisdiction to grant leave to appeal against a High Court refusal to extend time to file a notice of appeal under s144 of the Summary Proceedings Act 1957 because there was no case stated under s107 and no 'determination' on a general appeal; precedent in Taufoou establishes such interlocutory extension refusals are not appealable to this Court.
15 Jun 2020
The application to recuse was dismissed because a fair‑minded, fully informed observer would not reasonably apprehend that the judge could not bring an impartial mind to the trial; prior interlocutory comments and appellate attention did not determine trial issues and do not, by themselves, require recusal, and the judge will examine all evidence afresh at trial.
31 May 2017
Because the applicant succeeded on one significant issue but failed on others and the second respondent abided the High Court process and played a minimal role, the parties had roughly even success; accordingly costs should lie where they fall and neither party is ordered to reimburse the Crown for the lawyer for the child under s135A(4).
15 May 2015
The Supreme Court has jurisdiction under s 7 to hear the proposed appeal because no enactment expressly or implicitly precluded such an appeal; however, on the merits the application for leave to appeal was dismissed because the applicant did not establish the necessary criteria (public or general importance or commercial significance) for leave and the application was premature given the interlocutory nature of the Court of Appeal decision and the substantive issues were for full consideration in the High Court.
12 Feb 2014
Leave to appeal was refused because the challenged matters were interlocutory case management decisions that did not raise issues of general or public importance and there was no evidence of a substantial miscarriage of justice; the award of indemnity costs was sustainable on the factual background of the applicant's non-compliance with directions.
7 May 2013
Because Lister establishes that a refusal by the High Court to grant leave to appeal is not a 'determination' for the purposes of s163, the High Court lacks jurisdiction to grant leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal under s163; accordingly the application for leave was dismissed and the alternative applications under r7.49 and s13 were rejected.
6 Oct 2004
The Court refused to interfere: the District Court's factual and discretionary assessment that its discovery orders had been complied with was not shown to be wrong, the High Court properly declined to grant relief in exercise of discretion, and inordinate and unexplained delay reinforced the refusal; consequently judicial review was inappropriate and the appeal dismissed.