1 Nov 2023
The Registrar correctly declined the fee waiver because the proposed appeal raised only fact-specific issues affecting the parties and did not raise questions of law of genuine public interest; consequently the review application to waive the filing fee was dismissed.
26 Oct 2023
The Deputy Registrar acted within her discretion in declining the short, unexplained extension because the application lacked an accompanying dispensation application or explanation of delay, the appellants were experienced litigants, the delay risked prejudice to the respondent by stalling the appeal, and the prospects of a successful application to dispense security were negligible given the character of the appeal; accordingly the review application was declined.
6 Sept 2023
The Registrar correctly refused to accept the applicant's documents because Moore J's restraining order prohibited the applicant from commencing or continuing proceedings; the Registrar was obliged to give effect to that order and thus properly declined filing.
27 Jul 2023
The Deputy Registrar was correct to decline to consider the renewed application because the applicant showed no change in circumstances and was re-arguing points already rejected; therefore the review application was dismissed.
14 Feb 2023
The Deputy Registrar's decision to refuse dispensation from security for costs was correct because the appellant did not claim impecuniosity, the appeal did not raise public importance, it was likely to turn on its own facts, and the appellant's contested claim of set-off could not justify dispensing with security for costs.
24 Oct 2019
Because the applicant met the criteria for waiver under regs 18 and 19(b)(ii) at the time the fee was paid, no waiver application was made, and the criteria still applied when the refund application was brought, r 23 required the Registrar to refund the fee; the fact the underlying proceedings were completed and significant time had passed did not preclude a refund.
17 Apr 2018
The application to dispense with security for costs was declined because the applicant failed to prove impecuniosity or inability to raise the $6,600 (assets existed, including trust-held assets and personal items), had not sought legal aid, and the cross-appeal had little merit; it would be unjust to compel the respondent to defend the judgment without security.
12 Jun 2017
An extension of time to file the review was granted; the Registrar correctly applied Reekie and rationally concluded the appeal had some merit and that exceptional circumstances (appellant's impecuniosity, factual issues about contract signature/amendment and substantial exposure to a damages award) justified dispensing with security for costs; accordingly the review of the Registrar's decision was declined.
12 Sept 2016
The Registrar's decision to refuse waiver of the filing fee was not reviewed and was upheld because the appellants disclosed deep insolvency, no surplus income, no disposable assets and substantial indebtedness such that it was unrealistic and pointless to review the waiver absent satisfactory evidence explaining how the appeal and security for costs would be funded.
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.