26 May 2021
Time to appeal was extended despite a significant and imperfectly explained delay because the Almond v Read factors, viewed in the interests of justice, were satisfied: no demonstrable prejudice properly linked to the 56 working day delay and the proposed appeal was not so clearly hopeless as to justify refusal; appellant ordered to file appeal within 20 working days.
8 May 2020
The Deputy Registrar's decision was correct: the appellant has sufficient assets to pay security and has not demonstrated impecuniosity; the appeal has very low prospects given concurrent adverse credibility and factual findings below; and the appellant's history of failing to pay agreed or default tax debts creates a high risk he would not meet any costs order, justifying increased security of $9,560.
22 Mar 2016
The Deputy Registrar's decision was upheld because the appeal lacked a realistic prospect of success, the appellants are bankrupt and objectively unreasonable to pursue the same disputed issues again, and therefore it was proper to require security of costs to protect the respondents.
26 Jun 2014
The Registrar's decision was upheld because the application to dispense with security was filed outside the permitted time and the Registrar therefore lacked jurisdiction to accept it (Orlov); no extension to give security was granted because appellants failed to demonstrate a real prospect of obtaining funds and the appeal appeared to lack merit, so permitting further delay was unwarranted.
12 Jul 2012
The application for extension of time was granted because the appeal was filed only three days late, the applicants advanced good reasons for the short delay, the appeal had prospective merit and there was no identified prejudice to the respondent after weighing the enumerated factors under the applicable rule and authorities.
16 Jul 2009
The Supreme Court held the Court of Appeal did not breach natural justice and was entitled to make a modest costs award of $750 because the respondent was put to additional unnecessary work preparing for the interlocutory appeal that was filed and withdrawn; the Court of Appeal's critical remarks did not materially affect the reasoning for awarding costs and the quantum was appropriate.