26 Feb 2021
Applicant Yamu Chen was entitled to costs. Costs were calculated on a mixed 2B/2C basis producing $60,546, a 50% uplift was justified by the respondent's non‑compliance with High Court Rules, pursuit of meritless arguments, failure to admit facts, refusal of a reasonable settlement offer, and obstructive conduct; increased costs of $90,819 awarded plus disbursements of $11,052.86. Second counsel was not certified.
28 Apr 2020
The Court applied Schedule 3 scale costs, declined the defendant's invitation to inquire into or reduce presumed time because there was nothing exceptional about this case to depart from scale, and awarded the plaintiff costs on a 2B basis in the sum of $4,182.50.
10 Oct 2016
Section 25(3) authorises interim orders permitting appointment of an independent manager and letting of relationship property to preserve assets pending final determination; the Associate Judge correctly excluded the applicant's affidavits because the applicant was materially illiterate in English and the affidavits were not prepared in compliance with the High Court Rules and Oaths and Declarations Act; on balancing factors an interim letting managed by a property manager was appropriate given applicant's uncertain ability to occupy due to EM bail; review dismissed and s 25(3)/s 33 orders gr…
7 May 2015
Leave to appeal was revoked because the appellant failed to comply with mandatory procedural requirements (failure to file submissions, failure to respond to registry directions, failure to instruct counsel or properly and unequivocally abandon the appeal), did not appear at the hearing, and the Court would not, absent clear and engaged prosecution by the appellant, proceed in an appeal against conviction in his absence; the Court relied on its rule‑making and supervisory discretion to revoke leave.
28 May 2007
The six lay affidavits were excluded as inadmissible and irrelevant because they were historic and anecdotal, incapable of proving systemic failure or current practice, contained inadmissible medical opinion and causation evidence, and would unduly expand the issues; parts of the expert affidavit of Dr Aranui-Faed (paras 1-23 and 32-35) were admissible as potentially relevant to whether commonly used mental-health grounds comply with the statute, but other parts were excluded as irrelevant or beyond the proper scope.
17 Apr 2007
Hearsay, unqualified statements of belief and unqualified opinion evidence in affidavits for summary judgment are inadmissible; specific paragraphs of the defendant's and Nottingham's affidavits and the annexed valuations were excluded because they comprised inadmissible hearsay, belief or opinion and the valuers had not sworn affidavits.