3 Oct 2022
Leave to appeal was granted because the legal question whether s170(2) is confined to employers operating two or more separately identifiable and distinct businesses is serious, arguable and of wider importance; the High Court concluded s170(2) only engages in that factual scenario and certified that question for appeal.
8 Jul 2016
Leave to appeal was granted because the Crown identified a question of law going beyond the parties — whether the Tribunal omitted to consider good faith in the appellants' renunciation of Singapore residence — and the Tribunal's decision contained no finding on that issue, satisfying the s245(3) threshold for leave.
16 Aug 2012
The application for leave to appeal was dismissed because the appellant failed to identify any arguable question of law under s162; the matters raised were factual or concerned entitlements already resolved, the appellant conceded he was not an earner on 24 November 2004 and conceded no new physical injury occurred on that date, and therefore there was no basis for High Court review on a point of law.
19 May 2010
Leave to appeal was refused because no point of law of general or public importance was shown; the dispute was factual and any ACC payment would not confer co-ownership; therefore the application for leave to appeal was dismissed.
28 Jul 2009
Leave to appeal was refused because the District Court found no point of law meriting escalation to the High Court and the applicant failed to provide the required submissions and statement identifying legal error.
7 Nov 2007
The application for leave was declined because the District Court's decision was grounded in factual evaluation of medical evidence which failed to establish a causative link between the LASIK surgery and the vitreous floaters, and no proper question of law was shown.
24 Oct 2007
Leave to appeal was declined because the appellant failed to identify any question of law and failed to file submissions within the statutory period, and the District Court decision concerned issues of fact rather than law.
24 Oct 2007
Leave to appeal was dismissed because the District Court decision gave rise to no arguable question of law and the appellant failed to file submissions isolating any legal error; procedural non-compliance justified denial of leave.
12 May 2004
Leave to appeal was declined because the points raised were essentially factual and evidential findings supported by the material before the District Court and therefore not questions of law; the sole legal point (refusal to issue subpoenas) lacked any bona fide or serious prospect of success and was correctly decided.