26 May 2022
The recall application was dismissed because it amounted to a re-argument of the prior leave application and did not advance any new grounds or material justifying recall; the Court also exercised its authority to prevent further filings in a matter where no proper basis for further applications was shown.
2 Mar 2017
The application was dismissed for want of jurisdiction because the applicant was not a party and had no qualifying interest, and there is no statutory right or jurisdiction to review a judge's decision on access to court records by non‑parties.
29 Aug 2011
The application for leave to appeal was properly dismissed because the applicant, through his advocate, repeatedly failed to file required submissions despite multiple registrar directions and opportunities, establishing non-prosecution that justified dismissal.
5 Jun 2009
The application for leave to appeal was dismissed for want of prosecution because the applicant failed, despite repeated requests and a notice giving 28 days, to file submissions or take any steps to prosecute the application following counsel's withdrawal and a substantial lapse of time.
1 Feb 2008
The application for leave was dismissed because the applicant failed to prosecute the application: no grounds or submissions were filed despite repeated requests over an extended period, which justified exercising the court's discretion to dismiss.
31 Jan 2008
The appeal was dismissed under section 161(3) because the appellant failed to prosecute the appeal with due diligence and, without reasonable excuse, did not appear at the time appointed for hearing, justifying strike out.
23 Aug 2007
The appeal was dismissed pursuant to section 161(3) because the appellant failed to prosecute the appeal, did not appear at the Directions Hearing, and the judge concluded there was little prospect of success despite the appellant being a minor.