12 May 2015
Leave to appeal was refused because the issues relied on were either settled by existing authority (Reekie) or did not raise any question of public or general importance; procedural orders were in the applicant's favour and prior participation by the judge did not amount to disqualification, so the s 13 threshold for granting leave was not met.
9 Mar 2015
The recall application was dismissed because the applicant raised no new or compelling matter warranting recall; French J's decision was correctly identified as a s 61A(3) review and the applicant had no entitlement to a s 61A(2) review; the reference to security for costs was explanatory, not an order.
14 Nov 2013
French J correctly held that s 61A(2) did not apply because her 30 July 2013 judgment reviewed a Court of Appeal Registrar decision; s 61A(3) therefore applied and there was no right to seek review by the Court of Appeal, so the Registrar was to refuse to accept the 12 August 2013 application for want of jurisdiction.
14 Nov 2013
The Registrar properly considered the application under r 35(7); once the Registrar declined dispensation the correct route of review is by a single judge under s 61A(3); Harrison J properly treated the application as one under s 61A(3) and correctly refused to dispense with security for costs on settled principles, so leave to appeal is dismissed.
6 Jun 2013
The Registrar's refusal to accept filing was correct because the challenged decision was a s 61A(3) decision (a Court review of the Registrar), and s 61A(2) confines the Court's review jurisdiction to orders under s 61A(1), so there was no jurisdiction to file or hear an appeal against that decision.