16 Nov 2020
The strike‑out under r 5.35B and the five‑year civil restraint order under s 166 were correctly made because the High Court proceeding was an abuse of process, repeatedly attempted to relitigate finally determined matters, breached finality, and lacked arguable merit; accordingly extension of time and leave to appeal were refused.
4 Mar 2020
The respondents were entitled to costs on a 2B scale because the statement of claim was struck out as clearly untenable, frivolous and an abuse of process; all steps taken by respondents were reasonable and necessary, and the applicant was ordered to pay scale costs of $14,272 and disbursements of $1,810.23 (total $16,082.23).
26 Nov 2019
The restraint order was quashed because it was made without notice or hearing, causing an infringement of the applicant's right of access to the courts and natural justice; while restraint orders can be justified in narrow cases of plain abuse or vexatious repetition, they must generally be imposed only after giving the affected person prior notice and an opportunity to be heard; the High Court should hear the merits of the present review application before any restraint is considered.
19 Jun 2019
Leave to appeal was declined because the alleged procedural irregularities were not tenable or sufficiently material to warrant setting aside the judgment, the application was an indirect attempt to challenge the substantive merits which are the subject of an extant appeal as of right, and it was not in the interests of justice to grant leave.
23 May 2019
The Registrar properly refused to waive the filing fee because the proposed appeal was fact-specific and did not raise a matter of genuine public interest, the applicant provided no financial particulars demonstrating inability to pay, and the Fees Regulations require payment absent waiver so the application for review is dismissed.
7 May 2019
The Deputy Registrar was correct to refuse to accept the document for filing because s 169(6) of the Senior Courts Act 2016 makes the High Court judge's determination of an application for leave final, leaving no jurisdiction for the Court of Appeal to entertain or grant leave in the circumstances.
6 Mar 2019
Leave to proceed with judicial review was refused because the application was essentially vexatious and intended to harass, closely linked to a vexatious litigant, lacked any arguable merit on claims of bias or procedural impropriety, and was encompassed by an existing civil restraint order restricting proceedings without leave.