16 Nov 2020
Recall was refused because the applicant did not establish any qualifying ground for recall (no new authority, no failure to draw attention to relevant law, and no other very special reason); the applicant's remedy is to apply directly to the Court of Appeal, and justice does not require recalling the High Court's judgment refusing leave to appeal.
12 Apr 2017
Leave to appeal was dismissed because no exceptional circumstances justified a direct appeal to this Court, there was no material before the Court challenging the legality of the applicant's detention, and more appropriate remedies exist (appeal under the PPPR Act, review, or judicial review); further, ongoing name suppression is required under s80 PPPR Act and ss11B–11D Family Court Act 1980.
14 Nov 2007
Because there was no reliable evidence of the twelve‑month turnover for the period prior to the October 2004 agreement, the court could not conclude clause 5 had been triggered and therefore the caveat could not be ordered to lapse; the caveat is preserved conditionally while the applicant must commence substantive proceedings within 14 days to determine entitlement.
9 Oct 2006
Habeas corpus will not lie to challenge a change in security classification or conditions of detention where the lawfulness of detention under the warrant is not disputed; the applicant must use the statutory reconsideration under Corrections Act s48 and, if necessary, seek judicial review; accordingly the habeas corpus application is dismissed and will not be treated as judicial review given the respondent has initiated reconsideration.