31 Mar 2022
The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to determine whether the Court of Appeal was correct to dismiss the appeal and allow the cross-appeal, thereby authorizing consideration of that specific legal question at the highest appellate level.
5 Oct 2021
Leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal was declined because even if the Court had jurisdiction to hear the application it would not be granted leave: the High Court question as formulated rested on an incorrect factual premise, the correct question is case-specific and not of general or public importance, there is no risk of miscarriage of justice given the breadth of the Committee's statutory powers and the District Court order quashing and remitting the Board's decision remains operative, therefore the leave threshold is not met.
6 May 2021
The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal and framed the approved question for determination as whether the Court of Appeal correctly answered the questions of law submitted to it.
25 Mar 2021
Special leave was declined because the High Court's refusal was not plainly wrong, the arbitrator was highly qualified (a retired judge) chosen by the parties, the dispute was a commercial matter of limited public importance and likely limited substantial effect, and an as-of-right appeal on natural justice grounds remained available.
26 Jun 2020
Leave to appeal was declined because the issues raised were essentially factual (the appropriateness of damages and the validity of the termination notice), the statutory test for exemplary damages in s 109(3) was applied and did not require an additional 'flagrant' gloss, the initial notice was invalid on its face so the proposed legal questions were not seriously arguable, the High Court had already considered the arguments and there was no matter of public importance or other reason to justify a second appeal.
20 May 2020
Leave to appeal was declined because the applicant did not identify any question of law of general or public importance, the legal issues advanced were not seriously arguable, there was no risk of miscarriage of justice, and the principal relief sought (compensation) was not available in the Environment Court and thus was not a proper basis for appellate relief.
10 Oct 2018
Leave to appeal was refused because no question of law capable of bona fide and serious argument was identified: the District Court correctly relied on consistent medical and autopsy evidence that the death was due to underlying heart disease and not caused by lifting such that s28(3) work‑related personal injury was established, making this a factual determination not a legal error.
2 Aug 2018
QAC is entitled to costs because the appellant's broad pleadings and challenge to multiple Environment Court decisions made the appeal more time‑consuming than normal; accordingly Band C on a Category 3 basis is appropriate for all steps except items 23 and 24 which are awarded on Band B; second counsel costs were justified; increased costs are not awarded.
4 Jul 2018
The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal and leave to cross-appeal and framed an approved question limited to whether the Court of Appeal erred in allowing the appeal in part and dismissing the cross-appeal, thereby permitting both parties to advance the matters raised in their leave applications.
17 May 2017
The judge exercised discretion to refuse the interlocutory application to adduce additional evidence in support of the leave application and dismissed that application; the substantive application for leave to appeal was listed for hearing with directions for written submissions and a common bundle, indicating the court will determine leave based on the filed materials and without the refused evidence.