24 Apr 2020
The appeal was dismissed under s 338 because the appellant repeatedly failed to comply with timetabling directions, did not apply for legal aid nor indicate self-representation, could not be contacted despite registry attempts, and missed the final deadline before COVID‑19 restrictions so those restrictions do not excuse the default.
8 May 2018
Because the plaintiff discontinued the proceeding and provided no valid or supported reason nor any effective opposition to the respondent's costs claim, the court applied r 15.23 and ordered that the plaintiff pay the defendant's costs up to the date of discontinuance on a category 2B basis together with reasonable disbursements approved by the Registrar.
15 Aug 2012
The Court has jurisdiction (under r14.1 and its inherent jurisdiction) to award costs for non‑compliance with timetable directions in these civil forfeiture proceedings; the respondent breached directions causing approximately two hours of extra work for the applicant's lawyers and a modest costs award of $400 is appropriate; costs will not be awarded against counsel.
23 Jan 2008
Because the intended appellant repeatedly failed to comply with consent timetable directions and failed to appear at multiple court calls, the court properly made an unless order requiring filing and service of a supporting affidavit and any application for extension of time by a fixed date or the appeal would be struck out; the history of non-compliance justified that sanction pursuant to established authorities.
30 Jan 1997
The appeal is dismissed because the appellant failed to prosecute it, having not responded to repeated registrar correspondence or to attend or instruct representation, justifying dismissal for want of prosecution.