10 Dec 2013
The Deputy Registrar correctly concluded that the appeal concerns a private dispute about a debt and does not raise issues of public interest sufficient to invoke reg 5(4) of the Court of Appeal Fees Rules 2001; accordingly the request to waive the setting down fee was properly refused and the review is dismissed.
21 Mar 2013
The Registrar's decision was correct: the applicant did not establish undue financial hardship with adequate, current evidence and did not show the appeal was of significant interest to the public or a substantial section of the public under reg 5(4); the grant of leave under s214 does not automatically satisfy the reg 5 public interest requirement, so the waiver was properly declined.
1 Mar 2013
The Registrar's decision was correct and is upheld because the appellant did not establish that the appeal raised a question of law of significant public interest under reg 5(4)(b); the dispute depended on the specific facts of the transaction and there was no relevant financial hardship or inability to proceed without waiver, therefore the filing fee refund and setting down fee waiver were properly declined.
30 May 2012
An extension of time was granted because the application was made promptly, the delay was short (14 days), and there was no identifiable prejudice to the respondents; these factors satisfy the exercise of the Court's discretion under r 43(3).
7 Mar 2012
The Deputy Registrar correctly refused waiver because the two appeals are procedural rather than raising questions of law of significant public interest under reg 5(4), and the second proceeding was an abuse of process; accordingly each setting down fee must be paid.
7 Feb 2012
The Registrar's refusal to waive security for costs and the setting down fee was correct because the appeal concerned interlocutory orders that did not extinguish the appellant's substantive claims, the circumstances were not exceptional, the appeal did not raise matters of genuine public importance sufficient to justify waiver, and impecuniosity alone was insufficient to warrant waiver.
27 Nov 2007
The Court, exercising its statutory jurisdiction under ss 284(1)(b) and 329 of the Companies Act 1993, ordered that the liquidator's final report dated 18 July 2005 be reversed and directed the Registrar to restore Trowebber Limited to the New Zealand Companies Register; costs ordered so that each party bears their own costs.
7 Dec 2005
Because the appellant refused to pay the mandatory setting down fee required by the High Court Fees Regulations and did not obtain a waiver, the court was entitled to treat the non-payment as abandonment and dismiss the appeal; an adjournment would be pointless and costs and interest were properly awarded to the respondent.