16 Dec 2021
The review judge was not satisfied the proceedings concerned a matter of genuine public interest under the Regulations and the applicant failed to provide evidence she would not continue the proceeding unless the fee was waived; therefore the Deputy Registrar's refusals to waive fees were confirmed and the review applications were declined.
26 Nov 2021
The Deputy Registrar's refusal to waive the $200 filing fee was correct because the proceeding and the stay application do not concern a matter of genuine public interest under the Regulations: the proposed questions (abolishing statutes) are irrelevant to the stay application, do not affect a significant section of the public, and the applicant indicated she would proceed regardless so the proceeding is not unlikely to continue absent a waiver.
22 Nov 2021
Documents about policies and practices (including some material reflecting individual cases) are relevant to the applicant's challenge, but the broad categories of individual file discovery sought were disproportionate; the appropriate remedy is to require the respondents to file a full, frank affidavit explaining the policies and practices followed in investigating and prosecuting wage subsidy misuse with associated documents by 26 February 2022, after which the applicant may apply for further discovery.
14 Jul 2021
The Registrar correctly refused the fee waiver because the applicant expressly indicated he would commence or continue the proceeding if the waiver were refused, thus failing to meet regulation 18(2)(b)(ii); the review of the Registrar's decision is dismissed.
23 May 2019
The Registrar properly refused to waive the filing fee because the proposed appeal was fact-specific and did not raise a matter of genuine public interest, the applicant provided no financial particulars demonstrating inability to pay, and the Fees Regulations require payment absent waiver so the application for review is dismissed.
1 Mar 2018
The review is declined because the applicant conceded he was not unable to pay and simultaneously stated he would proceed regardless of a waiver, so the cumulative requirements of reg 5(2)(b) were not satisfied and the Registrar correctly refused to waive the fees.
22 Feb 2017
The Registrar correctly refused to waive the filing fee because the proposed appeal to the Supreme Court did not raise any question of law of significant public interest and the underlying appeal lacked merit and concerned only case‑specific facts; accordingly the public‑interest threshold for fee waiver was not met.
27 Nov 2015
The Prosecution Decision to offer no evidence and discontinue was not amenable to judicial review in the circumstances because prosecutorial discretion attracts high restraint and the record did not establish consideration of an unlawful bargain or failure to observe mandatory considerations; the voluntary $3.41m payment was a permissible public interest factor and no binding agreement to stifle prosecution was proved; Worksafe had regard to statutory objectives including s 5(g); the applicants had no legitimate expectation of prior consultation; the District Court Judge lawfully dismissed th…