12 May 2022
The recall application was declined because the applicant did not demonstrate that the paper-based determination caused any substantial injustice, failed to produce the alleged fresh evidence to show a probable substantial injustice, and sought effectively to re-litigate the extension of time decision; therefore recall was not the appropriate remedy.
13 Oct 2020
Because the applicants were validly appointed as trustees out of court pursuant to s43 Trustee Act 1956, s52(1)(a) empowers the Court to vest the undivided one‑half share of the subject land in the applicants as trustees; the Court was satisfied the without‑notice procedure, dispensing with service, and hearing on the papers were justified and consequently made the vesting order.
14 Jun 2018
The High Court's determination of the first appeal on the papers was a nullity because s 330 mandates an oral hearing; however, none of the statutory grounds in s 232(2) for allowing a second appeal were established on the material before this Court, so the second appeal must be dismissed rather than resulting in acquittal or this Court directing a rehearing; the appropriate remedy is an application to the High Court for a rehearing of the first appeal.