29 Feb 2016
Because the appellant failed to comply with a clear court direction to file submissions and evidence by the specified deadline after an excessive and unexplained delay, the court dismissed the appeal for want of prosecution.
22 Jun 2012
Dismissal was warranted because the appellant failed to prosecute the appeal with due diligence: she did not file submissions as directed, was not contactable, and her counsel withdrew, thereby meeting the threshold for dismissal under section 161(3)(b).
17 Nov 2010
Leave to appeal was dismissed because the Court was satisfied Glazebrook J applied orthodox and settled criteria in ordering security for costs, properly balanced the applicant's limited means by reducing the sum to $5,000, and there was no issue of principle warranting further appeal; respondents are entitled to protection by security for costs.
6 Nov 2008
The appeal was dismissed for want of prosecution because the appellant repeatedly failed to comply with court directions, failed to file submissions or instruct counsel despite multiple undertakings and notices, and did not engage with the Registrar, justifying termination of the proceeding.
2 Oct 2008
Repeated failure by the appellant to comply with court directions and the appellant's non‑appearance without explanation demonstrates a failure to prosecute and justifies dismissal of the appeal under s161(3)(b) of the Act.
20 Jul 2007
The appeal was dismissed pursuant to s161(3)(b) because the appellant and his representatives repeatedly failed to file submissions, comply with directions and did not appear at the scheduled hearing, constituting a failure to prosecute the appeal with due diligence.