4 Aug 2023
Because the consent to set aside the registration did not amount to concession on the substantive merits, there was a tenable material change of circumstances and the Court would not adjudicate the wider merits or alleged set-offs properly for the English proceedings, costs were ordered to lie where they fall.
18 Jul 2019
Leave to appeal was granted because, although the prospects of success on whether s 6(1)(c) requires actual notice are not strong, they are not non‑existent; the issue is discrete, of sufficient significance and urgency given the risk of asset dissipation if freezing orders are rescinded, and the balance of prejudice and practical consequences supports permitting an early appellate determination.
14 Oct 2016
The Court was satisfied on the affidavit evidence that a qualifying English judgment existed and that the registration application complied with required certification; accordingly registration was ordered and the statutory set aside period and enforcement prohibition under r 23.15 were applied.
11 Feb 2015
Leave to appeal was dismissed because the applicants merely sought to re-litigate issues already fully determined in New South Wales; they failed to establish a question of law of public or general importance or any appearance of miscarriage of justice, and the additional evidence would not have changed the outcome.
15 Aug 2014
The Court dismissed leave to adduce further evidence because the material was not shown to be fresh and was not credible or cogent and was largely irrelevant to whether the advances were loans; the appellants failed to establish a prima facie case of fraud on the NSW court, failed to show any reason to direct issues for trial under r23.20(2), and the appeal was therefore dismissed with costs against the appellants.
13 Sept 2012
On the balance of probabilities the contemporaneous service form and the process server's account grounded in his practice established that personal service occurred on 9 August 2010; the applicant's denial was not sufficient to discharge the onus under s 6(1)(c), therefore the registration was not to be set aside.
5 Nov 2008
The petition was dismissed because the debt pleaded in the petition had been paid so the petition's allegations were no longer true at hearing as required by s 26(1); the original petitioner cannot substitute a different debt under s 26(9); and any amendment to plead the second judgment would introduce a claim that is statute-barred by the three-month limitation in s 23(b).