10 Jun 2022
The Registrar did not err: the information sought was publicly available via the Courts website or constituted a global index not required to be reproduced, the applicant was not a party to Greer v Smith, and the applications were vexatious and barred by the Court's prior 2016 direction; accordingly the review applications are dismissed.
14 Jul 2021
The Registrar correctly refused the fee waiver because the applicant expressly indicated he would commence or continue the proceeding if the waiver were refused, thus failing to meet regulation 18(2)(b)(ii); the review of the Registrar's decision is dismissed.
17 Sept 2018
The Registrar's decision to refuse electronic filing was correct under r 31(1) Court of Appeal (Civil) Rules 2005; the application to review that decision is declined and the appellant must file a hard copy notice of appeal and apply for an extension of time to appeal.
5 Apr 2016
The Deputy Registrar correctly refused to accept the stay application for filing because established Court of Appeal practice requires stay applications, absent special circumstances, to be first filed in the court appealed from; no special circumstances were shown and the appellant's concern about losing appeal rights was unfounded.
18 Feb 2016
The Registrar's refusal to waive the fee was confirmed because the applicant's substantive application was incoherent and did not demonstrate that the issues met the High Court Fees Regulations' threshold of being of significant interest to the public or a substantial section of the public, so the statutory criteria for waiver under regs 18 and 20 were not satisfied.
6 May 2015
Because the applicant explicitly confirmed on the prescribed form that she would commence or continue the proceeding even if the fee waiver was refused, the Registrar could not be satisfied of the r 18(2)(b)(ii) requirement and therefore correctly declined to waive the fee; r 18 requires both the public interest and the 'unlikely to proceed without waiver' elements to be satisfied.
17 Dec 2013
Regulation 23 does not authorize refund where the change of circumstances occurred after payment of the fees and after disposal of the matters; the Regulations do not contemplate successive refund applications and repeated applications that have already been dismissed amount to an abuse of process, therefore the Registrar's refusals were upheld and further filings from the applicant may be refused.
12 Sept 2007
The appeal is dismissed because the Form 10 did not comply with the mandatory requirement in s159(2)(b) to include the full names and residential addresses of every person who was a director from the date of the notice; accepting the non‑compliant document would contravene the statutory requirement in s150 that a company must have at least one director and the Registrar therefore could not lawfully register it.