28 Aug 2023
Leave to appeal was granted so the Supreme Court can determine whether the Court of Appeal erred in allowing the respondent's appeal.
12 Jul 2023
The application for leave to appeal was dismissed because the proposed appeal did not raise a question of law capable of bona fide and serious argument nor one of sufficient importance to justify further appeal; the arbitrator's finding that the Vogels provided "proper access" was not perverse and was supported by the evidence, so there was no need to determine the statutory point about the 2007 amendment.
4 Jun 2021
The Tribunal considered the rehabilitation evidence and availability, applied the correct s 207 statutory test, and its weighting of rehabilitation against the seriousness of the murder offence did not disclose a legally arguable error; consequently there is no seriously arguable question of law of general or public importance and leave to appeal is refused.
24 Sept 2019
The High Court held the District Court judge did not err in principle or exercise of discretion: he considered and balanced sentencing purposes including denunciation, deterrence and rehabilitation, found the pre-sentence report provided insufficient reasoned support for home detention, and concluded 19 months' imprisonment was within the available range and the least restrictive appropriate sentence in all the circumstances; appeal dismissed.
25 Mar 2019
Leave to appeal was refused because the alleged error of law was weak and contrary to settled authority that user damages are assessed by reference to the value of the right via hypothetical negotiation; the arbitrator did not err in focusing on the benefit to the infringing party and the discretionary factors for granting leave were not satisfied.
28 Feb 2019
The High Court found no error of law in the District Court's decision: the available evidence and independent expert opinion established that preoperative investigations and treatment were appropriate, there was no basis to conclude the surgery was unnecessary, and the insertion of the cholecystostomy tube was necessary treatment not a treatment injury; absence of specialist commentary meant medical literature could not displace expert opinion, so special leave to appeal was refused.
14 Nov 2018
The District Court judge committed reviewable error by making a Permanent Suppression Order without apparent application of the s202 statutory test, relying on factual misapprehensions (that an interim suppression existed and that there had been an application for permanent suppression), and failing to give reasons; accordingly the Permanent Suppression Order was unlawful and is set aside (but not declared void ab initio).
31 Jul 2017
The applicant failed to identify any question of law; the issue raised was factual (causation) and the expert had been made aware of the tourniquet theory but concluded there was no causal link, therefore leave to appeal was not available and the application was dismissed.
4 Jul 2017
The referee candidly acknowledged a material mistaken assumption about the respondents' evidence; exercising the wide discretion under s49 to ensure fairness and the appearance of justice, the grant of rehearing was lawful, did not involve taking irrelevant considerations, did not breach natural justice because parties had notice and opportunity to respond, and was not Wednesbury unreasonable; accordingly judicial review dismissed.
24 Nov 2016
Leave to appeal was granted because there is a seriously arguable error of law: the District Court may have given insufficient regard to qualified expert evidence that the generic weighbridge operator worksheet was outdated and therefore placed undue reliance on the worksheet; that arguable legal error warrants High Court consideration.