13 Nov 2023
The appeal is dismissed under High Court Rules r 20.12(1) because the appellant repeatedly failed to comply with court directions, failed to proceed with the appeal, did not file the required application for leave to appeal out of time, and offered no legitimate explanation for the defaults; dismissal was an appropriate exercise of the court's discretion.
30 Nov 2022
The appeal was dismissed because the appellant failed to comply with a procedural direction to file written submissions, the Court complied with s 338 by giving 10 working days' notice and making reasonable attempts at service, and the appeal lacked an arguable prospect of success on its nominated grounds, so dismissal under s 338 was an appropriate exercise of discretion.
2 Aug 2022
The unless order operated automatically upon non‑compliance; because no formal application for relief was made in the District Court supported by evidence the High Court lacked jurisdiction to overturn the automatic dismissal and could not exercise residual discretion on a purported appeal; therefore the appeal must be dismissed.
6 May 2020
Given prolonged non-compliance with the security for costs order since 24 December 2019, the stay of proceedings caused by breach of an unless order, the substantial prejudice to the defendants, absence of adequate explanation or evidence that the default will be rectified in time to retain the fixture, and after balancing interests (with limited weight given to possible COVID‑19 impact and solicitors' failure to appreciate seriousness), the Court ordered dismissal unless the plaintiffs paid $60,000 security and applied to be relieved of the stay by 5:00 pm 29 May 2020.
7 Nov 2019
Where an appellant, despite repeated directions, warnings and opportunities over more than three years, fails to file grounds of appeal or prosecute the appeal, and no adequate justification for further delay or adjournment is shown, the Court will decline adjournment and dismiss the appeal for failure to prosecute.
2 Jun 2015
The appeal was dismissed because the appellant failed to contact the court or appear as directed, justifying dismissal under the court's power to dismiss for non-compliance.
30 Mar 2011
The defendant failed to establish unavoidable or substantial prejudice or intentional and contumelious non-compliance; therefore the court will not make an 'unless' order or strike out the plaintiff's proceedings at this stage and will instead allow a deadline for the first tranche of security (30 November 2011) after which the defendant may apply on two days' notice; leave granted for a further two-day-notice application supported by affidavit if substantial prejudice arises.
7 Aug 2009
Proceedings dismissed under High Court Rules r15.2 for failure to pay ordered security for costs; plaintiff ordered to pay defendants' costs (assessed at 2B) and disbursements; first defendant awarded costs of its summary judgment application despite being unsuccessful because the application clarified and crystallised issues.
11 Sept 2001
The appeal was dismissed because the appellant failed to file submissions after multiple requests, authorising dismissal under Rule 482 of the District Court Rules.