3 Nov 2023
Because statutory leave was required under s143(2) for the s46R guardianship counselling direction and under s143(3) for interlocutory orders, and no leave had been obtained, the High Court lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal; accordingly the appeal against Judge Duggan was stayed pending a formal leave application and the appeal against Judge Partridge was struck out under r5.35B for lack of jurisdiction.
21 Apr 2023
Although the defendants' late memorandum did not neatly fit the Practice Note criteria, the Court exercised its discretion to rescind its minute and admit the 19 September 2022 submissions because, in the interests of justice and given the defendants were self-represented, they should be afforded leniency to ensure the Court had not overlooked points raised at the hearing; consequently the minute of 21 September 2022 was rescinded and the submissions admitted.
8 Mar 2023
Leave to appeal was refused because the asserted errors did not meet the high threshold required for an interlocutory appeal under s56; the alleged errors lacked sufficient significance for the parties or as precedent, and the Family Court's imminent final hearing would address the substantive issues, making exceptional judicial review inappropriate.
25 Jul 2022
Leave to appeal was declined because the contested issues (expert dishonesty, admissibility/use of will‑say statements, and wasted costs) were interlocutory, required trial‑level determination on fuller evidence and oral testimony, and could not properly be resolved on the record before the Court; accordingly the High Court's refusal to make findings of dishonesty and its costs orders were not suitable for appellate intervention.
5 Jul 2022
Leave to appeal was declined because the applicant failed to identify any arguable error of law or fact of sufficient general importance to meet the high threshold in s56(5); the High Court correctly concluded the stay avoided duplication with the substantive District Court proceeding, the joint memorandum would not have affected the outcome, and granting leave would cause unwarranted delay and not serve the interests of justice.
18 Feb 2022
Leave to appeal was refused because the plaintiff had effectively invited the security-for-costs order by offering a mortgage over his parents' property, the proposed appeal lacked real merit and risked being trivial, the high threshold for interlocutory leave was not met, and the interests of justice did not support granting leave.
9 Sept 2021
Leave to appeal was declined because the applicant failed to identify an arguable error of law or fact of sufficient general or personal importance to justify the further delay of an appeal; consolidation of the six appeals against a single Family Court decision was appropriate; absence of physical files did not invalidate the telephone conference or the directions including the standard security for costs order; any minor categorisation issue could be addressed under the slip rule.
27 May 2021
Leave to appeal was refused because the applicant failed to identify any arguable error of law or fact, the issues did not raise matters of sufficient general or public importance to justify the delay of an appeal, the interests of justice did not favor further delay, and there was no legal basis to join the applicant to the liquidation proceedings.
14 Jul 2020
Leave to appeal was dismissed because the applicant failed to identify any arguable error of law or fact in the High Court's judgment removing the caveat, the purported new evidence did not establish a foundation for a caveatable interest, and there was no demonstrated public importance or precedent value that would justify the delay and expense of an intermediate appeal.
24 Apr 2020
Leave to appeal was refused because the applicant failed to demonstrate any error in the original decision requiring modest security for costs, the appeal had no realistic prospect of success, lacked wider significance, and did not justify the delay involved in further appeal; the s 56(5) application must attack the original interlocutory decision, not the High Court's refusal of leave.