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.
19 May 2016
The appeal was dismissed. The High Court found no basis for the appellant's complaints of bias or other grounds of appeal, held that costs to both respondents were appropriate given the Police interpleader application and that the second respondent was the successful party, but ordered that only one set of costs be awarded and shared equally between the two respondents pursuant to the proper application of costs principles and relevant rules.
20 Feb 2014
Leave to appeal out of time was refused because the applicant's explanation for the delay was spurious and unjustified, the proposed grounds of appeal had no real prospect of success (no evidence of bias and no arguable Bill of Rights claim), and the respondent suffered prejudice from delay; consequently extension was not in the interests of justice and the stay of the bankruptcy proceedings was lifted.
28 Feb 2008
Application for leave to appeal was dismissed because it was filed 11 days after expiry of the mandatory 21-day period with no power to extend time, and the substantive complaints did not raise a bona fide question of law: the ambulance trips fell outside the 24-hour requirement for emergency transport and lacked prior approval required for non-emergency transport under the regulations.