20 Dec 2023
The Deputy Registrar's decision was correct because the applicants failed to provide sufficient evidence to satisfy reg 5(2) of the Supreme Court Fees Regulations 2003 that payment of the filing fee would cause undue financial hardship, so the fee waiver was properly refused.
18 Dec 2023
Leave for LPF to reapply was refused because r 7.52 applied and LPF did not establish the requisite 'special circumstances'; SPF's application for security for costs was refused because it failed to establish an evidential foundation from which an adverse inference of Mr Whitley's inability to pay could be drawn (funding and trustee-held properties did not suffice); LPF's application for leave to appeal was refused because the proposed appeal did not raise a seriously arguable error with reasonable prospects of success and did not justify the cost and delay of an appeal.
18 Dec 2023
Leave to appeal was refused because the applicants did not raise a question of general or public importance nor demonstrated a substantial miscarriage of justice; the appeal was properly treated as abandoned for failure to comply with Court of Appeal rules regarding security for costs and filing, and the award of costs by the High Court was orthodox and within judicial discretion including in relation to a habeas corpus element.
14 Dec 2023
Leave to appeal was declined because the issues raised did not present novel questions of law or general principle requiring a second appeal; the High Court found that in the absence of market evidence supporting the claimant's asserted reduction in value the costs to cure methodology adopted on the evidence was appropriate in the circumstances and there was no irreconcilable legal tension requiring appellate determination.
8 Dec 2023
The renewed recall application was dismissed because it impermissibly sought to relitigate the reasons for refusing leave to appeal and failed to meet the established high threshold for recall, therefore the recall must be refused and further filings in the matter restrained.
8 Dec 2023
The Court granted the extension of time under r 43 because the delay was short, caused by counsel oversight, produced no prejudice, and the proposed appeal raised issues warranting a second appeal; although the respondent acted unreasonably by not consenting as required by r 19A, the ordinary course of costs lies where they fall.
8 Dec 2023
Leave to appeal interlocutory decisions was declined because the issues were properly raised and could be advanced as grounds of appeal against the substantive judgment, the threshold for leave was not met, and the informal discovery requests did not justify recusal; the stay of enforcement of the costs judgment was refused because the proposed appeal had no reasonable prospect of success and defendants were entitled to recover their costs.
7 Dec 2023
The Supreme Court allowed an extension of time but refused leave to appeal because the High Court correctly applied settled law: s 200(2)(f) does not automatically mandate suppression nor was it misread to require extreme hardship in this case, s 202(4) does not create a presumption for suppression of a defendant, and the High Court reasonably exercised its discretion on the facts where risks to the school were limited and mitigable and the public interest and victim's views outweighed suppression.
7 Dec 2023
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed because the issues advanced are applications of settled law that do not raise matters of public or general importance nor disclose a real prospect of miscarriage of justice, and the Court of Appeal did not err in its evidential or sentencing analysis.
7 Dec 2023
Section 163 does not authorise an appeal to the Court of Appeal against the High Court's refusal to grant leave to appeal because such a refusal is not a 'determination or decision... on the appeal'; accordingly the application for leave to appeal is dismissed.