29 Jul 2021
Because the filing did not identify any judicial decision against which an appeal was sought, it could not be treated as an application for leave to appeal and the Court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the broad substantive inquiries asserted; accordingly the Deputy Registrar's refusal to accept the document for filing was confirmed.
9 Mar 2021
Directions purportedly preventing Registrars from granting or varying bail in family violence cases were unlawful because they effectively removed statutory authority conferred on Registrars by the District Court Act, Bail Act and Criminal Procedure Act; s24 management powers cannot be used to override clear statutory jurisdiction. The impugned directions are declared unlawful and are quashed.
28 Jun 2019
The Court restored KDB because the applicant demonstrated it had an undischarged claim against KDB when KDB was removed, the claim was genuine and not clearly untenable, and there was no opposition from the Registrar or the Crown; accordingly the Court had jurisdiction under s 329 and it was appropriate to order restoration.
21 May 2019
Where a matter is decided on the papers with no hearing, the formal court record under r 8(5) is limited to the judgment published by the Court; therefore documents beyond the judgment are not available as of right and the Registrar's refusal to provide those documents for Slavich and Guy was correct (in Guy r 8(5) did not apply because Guy was neither an appeal nor an application for leave).
30 Apr 2018
The Registrar was entitled under reg 18(3) of the High Court Fees Regulations 2013 to require an application for waiver to be in the approved form and to insist on production of the Legal Services Agency letter of grant of legal aid; notice under s 24 of the Legal Services Act 2011 does not bind the Registrar for fee waiver purposes and the Registrar may only dispense with the approved form or its requirements in the exercise of discretion, therefore Mallon J did not err in upholding the Registrar and the application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
8 Sept 2017
Regulation 18(3) of the High Court Fees Regulations 2013 authorises the Registrar to require applicants to make fee waiver applications in the approved form and therefore to require the Legal Services Agency letter as proof of a grant of legal aid; s 24 of the Legal Services Act 2011 does not preclude that requirement, and the Registrar was entitled to adhere to the form; the plaintiff's argument that notice under s 24 alone sufficed has no merit.
15 Sept 2016
Costs for the search orders were fixed now in favour of Southpac on a Category 2B basis; indemnity costs were denied because Reeves did not engage in misconduct comparable to cases awarding indemnity costs; specific cost items were allowed or disallowed per assessment against the Schedule and certain disbursements (private investigator and $468.79 LawFlow) were remitted to the Registrar to determine necessity, reasonableness and proportionality under r14.12(2)-(4).
18 Dec 2015
The Supreme Court refused leave: the Registrar was entitled to reject documents invoking a jurisdiction the Court does not have and had jurisdiction under r 8 to address alleged clerical errors in the sealed judgment; the matters raised did not raise a point of general or public importance nor a miscarriage of justice and the applicant's challenge to the sealed judgment had been fully considered and dismissed by the Court of Appeal.
7 Feb 2014
The Registrar correctly held there was no jurisdiction for the appellant's s 61A(1) application because the Court of Appeal Civil Rules provide an automatic security fixing mechanism under r 35(5) and a Registrar-led departure process under r 35(6); the appellant's attempt to invoke a Judge under s 61A(1) cut across the scheme of the rules and was properly refused, so the application for review is dismissed.
26 Jul 2012
The Court ordered discharge because the plaintiff failed to provide the additional security required by the Registrar, available funds were insufficient to meet incurred and reasonably anticipated custody costs, the Registrar validly sought assistance under HCR 25.55, and there was no good reason to refuse the Registrar's request given the circumstances and the owner's support for release.