13 Apr 2021
There was insufficient evidence that the proceeding concerned a matter of genuine public interest under reg 20 and the applicant expressly stated she would continue regardless, so she failed to satisfy reg 18(2)(b)(ii); accordingly the Deputy Registrar's refusal to refund the fees was upheld.
8 Jun 2017
The application for review of the Registrar's decision was dismissed because the proposed appeals relate to the applicant's personal circumstances and do not raise a question of law of significant interest to the public required for a fee waiver under r5(2)(b)(i) of the Supreme Court Fees Regulations 2003.
10 Dec 2013
The Deputy Registrar correctly concluded that the appeal concerns a private dispute about a debt and does not raise issues of public interest sufficient to invoke reg 5(4) of the Court of Appeal Fees Rules 2001; accordingly the request to waive the setting down fee was properly refused and the review is dismissed.