3 Jul 2023
The Associate Judge dismissed the recusal application and refused leave to appeal because adverse rulings do not demonstrate bias, the applicant failed to identify any arguable error of law or fact and an Associate Judge has jurisdiction to determine interlocutory applications; the request to waive security for costs was premature because no security order existed.
2 Jun 2021
Leave to appeal was declined because the applicant failed to establish an arguable error of law of sufficient general importance, the Associate Judge had jurisdiction and acted appropriately in the unusual factual matrix (trust under receiver, no trustees) and the interests of justice and substantial delay militated against further appeal; the broader enforceability questions are better resolved in a case where they are directly engaged and fully considered by the High Court.
6 Sept 2019
Default judgment of 28 March 2019 was irregularly obtained because the Associate Judge lacked jurisdiction to determine the substantive proceeding in Chambers; defendants demonstrated arguable defences creating a real risk of miscarriage of justice; therefore the Court set aside the default judgment under r 15.10 HCR on terms preventing defendants from dealing with the property pending final disposition and ordered costs as specified.
1 May 2018
Dismissal: Mr Malone's affidavit of 23 March 2018 removed the premise for relief under r9.75; in any event the court would decline to exercise its discretion to compel attendance or an affidavit because no special circumstances were shown, discovery is a standard application governed by proportionality and reasonable search obligations, and an Associate Judge must avoid making coercive declarations that would exceed jurisdiction.
10 Feb 2017
An Associate Judge does not have jurisdiction to make an arrest order under HCR 17.18 where s 26I of the Judicature Act 1908 bars Associate Judges from making arrest orders; the proper course is to refer the matter to a High Court Judge under s 26M.
23 Mar 2016
Leave to apply for review out of time was refused because the defendants gave no sufficient explanation for an 84 working day delay, the challenged orders were within the Associate Judge's jurisdiction and properly exercised as discretionary interlocutory decisions, the defendants' substantive grounds lacked merit, and granting leave would cause unfair delay and prejudice to the plaintiff and the timely progression of the proceeding.
12 Dec 2013
The Associate Judge did not exceed jurisdiction or misapply the law in ordering limited security for costs; given the plaintiff's undischarged bankruptcy there were no reasonable grounds to believe he could pay adverse costs, and the Associate Judge properly exercised his discretion by awarding security limited to costs up to the statement of defence rather than the whole proceeding.
21 Oct 2013
An Associate Judge has jurisdiction to determine costs on the discontinuance as the costs application was an interlocutory matter properly before the Associate Judge; the r 15.23 presumption that a discontinuing plaintiff pays costs is displaced in part because the underlying merits were obvious and the Court of Appeal had directed costs to lie where they fall, but the defendants are entitled to costs for their initial opposition and first callover totalling $1,732; otherwise costs lie where they fall.
9 Jul 2013
Costs orders made incidental to an interlocutory strike-out application under s26J are decisions that fall to be challenged by application for review under s26P (ie are "in Chambers" for these purposes), so the present application for review was properly brought; the Commissioner’s jurisdictional challenge to dismiss the review application was rejected; stay pending review will only be granted on payment into court of the total sum fixed ($19,106.98).
12 Jun 2013
Given evidence of dysfunctional trustee relations and deadlock, together with consent from all affected parties and representative consultees, it was expedient under s51 to remove and replace the trustees and appropriate under s64A to authorise the proposed variation vesting appointment power in the trustees exercisable by deed; the variation is not to the detriment of beneficiaries and costs may be met from trust assets.