26 Feb 2021
Because the respondent was found in contempt, took no steps to participate or oppose despite service, and the applicants were successful in their applications, the Court exercised its discretion to award costs on the 2B scale and ordered payment of $14,926.13 plus disbursements to the applicants.
24 Oct 2019
The application for leave was dismissed because the applicant failed to attend the scheduled hearing and did not provide any explanation despite repeated adjournments and an out‑of‑time filing; given the long history of adjournments, the sentence already served, and absence of any explanation, dismissal of the leave application was the appropriate exercise of the Court's discretion.
1 Apr 2019
The appeal was properly dismissed for want of prosecution by exercise of the Court's inherent power because the appellant was aware of the hearing and his obligation to attend, chose not to appear or to contact counsel despite being able to do so, and attendance was necessary given contested allegations about counsel competence; the inherent power may be exercised in these circumstances subject to careful consideration of the appellant's rights.
27 Sept 2018
Leave was granted because the High Court dismissed the first appeal without hearing the appellant despite timely filed materials (including a document raising sufficiency arguments and fresh evidence) and without inquiry into his non-appearance, creating a real risk of miscarriage of justice under s237(2)(b).
6 Aug 2018
The court declined to reserve costs pending arbitration because arbitration was unlikely to resolve the solvency question; the interim liquidator application failed but was not so hopeless as to justify increased costs; parties' substantive costs claims largely cancelled each other out; the plaintiff was penalised for two non-appearances and the defendant was awarded costs on a 2B basis for those appearances totaling $1,784.00; the plaintiff's costs application was dismissed.
30 Mar 2016
Leave to appeal was declined because the applicant failed to demonstrate an error of law capable of serious argument under section 162, failed to attend despite clear advance notice and warnings, provided unsatisfactory reasons for non-attendance, and the substantive merits had been dealt with on the filed written material.
2 Jun 2015
The appeal was dismissed because the appellant made no contact and failed to comply with directions, justifying dismissal for failure to prosecute.
12 Aug 2011
The appeals were dismissed under s 161(3)(b) because the appellant had not prosecuted the appeals with due diligence, failed to maintain contact or provide submissions, and the appeals could not realistically be set down for a substantive hearing.
3 Dec 2010
The application to set aside the dismissal was refused because the appellant failed to demonstrate non-receipt of notice or a sufficient excuse for non-appearance, the appeal had little prospect of success given the aged specialist assessment and lack of contradicting expert evidence, and no miscarriage of justice was shown; therefore the Court declined to exercise its discretionary power to reinstate the appeal.
22 Feb 2010
The applicant's challenge to the statutory demand was unmeritorious because the underlying Motor Vehicle Disputes Tribunal judgment remained unchallenged and unpaid, and the applicant failed to comply with court directions; accordingly increased costs were appropriate and awarded.