31 Oct 2019
The application to recall was declined because it did not fall within the established narrow categories for recall (no new law, no overlooked authoritative material, no very special reason); it was an attempt to relitigate factual findings affirmed by the High Court and this Court, and therefore provided no proper basis for recall.
6 May 2019
The conviction was upheld because reliable eyewitness testimony corroborated by photographs and damage allowed the inference that the appellant, while filtering, proceeded past stationary traffic without ensuring the road ahead was clear; that failure met the objective test for careless driving and there was no miscarriage of justice under s 232(2)(b).
19 Apr 2013
The District Court correctly held that clause 26 does not authorize occupational assessors to make medical judgments, that the medical assessor had considered the claimant's pain and capacity under clause 29, and that Judge Beattie independently weighed the evidence under the Martin standard; no question of law was established and leave to appeal was dismissed.