19 Oct 2023
Leave to appeal was granted because, although the specific takedown order issue had become moot following conclusion of the trial, the legal question whether the Court of Appeal was correct to quash the High Court takedown order raised a point of sufficient public importance to justify granting leave.
25 Mar 2022
The application to recall was dismissed because the applicant failed to establish the required 'very special reasons' for recall; s 77 allows brief general reasons for refusing leave and the Court properly understood the applicant's arguments such that misstatement and inadequacy claims did not justify recall.
8 Mar 2022
Application for an extension of time was dismissed because the applicant failed to provide a sufficient explanation for the delay, the proposed grounds were thoroughly examined below and concerned only the particular circumstances of the case (not matters of general or public importance), and there was no risk of miscarriage of justice.
14 Sept 2017
The Reekie principles were properly applied by the lower court and are sufficiently broad to encompass an appeal challenging a bankruptcy order; no adaptation was required, the case did not raise a matter of public or general importance nor an appearance of miscarriage of justice, therefore leave to appeal is refused though an extension of time is granted.
14 Oct 2014
The Registrar's refusal to dispense with security for costs is upheld because there were no exceptional circumstances, impecuniosity alone is insufficient, the appeal lacks public importance and has weak prospects, and the appellant declined legal aid; security for costs in the sum of $5,880 is required.
14 Jul 2014
The Registrar did not err: the appellant failed to establish exceptional circumstances to waive security for costs, impecuniosity alone is insufficient, and the appeal lacked merit so ordering security of $5,880 was justified.
6 May 2014
Leave to appeal was declined because the proposed appeal did not raise a question of general or public importance under s 13 nor a risk of miscarriage of justice; there was no basis to waive security for costs under r 35(6)(c) as the circumstances were not exceptional and the appellant was not impecunious and the merits were debatable; the order to hear appeals together was merely procedural.
8 Aug 2012
Leave to appeal was granted because the case raised issues of law of general public importance for the Crown and the plaintiffs did not oppose the application.
8 Dec 2006
Leave to appeal was granted because the question of whether a union may issue a s 42 notice to initiate bargaining for a subsequent party raises a question of law of general or public importance and is not rendered moot by the respondent's sale of its business; the matter has ongoing effect for unions and employers and was rightly characterized as novel and important by the Employment Court.
8 Dec 2006
Leave to appeal was granted because the issue of whether a union can issue a s 42 notice to initiate bargaining for an employer to join an existing collective agreement as a subsequent party was not moot and raises a question of law of general or public importance warranting appellate determination.