1 Jul 2021
Section 123 of the Human Rights Act 1993 prescribes a mandatory 22 working day limit for appeals and contains no power to extend that time; the High Court Rules require filing and service to 'bring' an appeal; because the appellant did not serve the notice within the statutory period the appeal was not validly brought and must be struck out.
7 Nov 2019
The application was dismissed because the applicant failed to serve a sworn affidavit supporting the application within the mandatory ten working day period, a requirement the Court cannot extend; non‑compliance is fatal to the application to set aside the bankruptcy notice.
17 Sept 2018
The application for review was declined because Rule 31(1) requires filing the notice of appeal in hard copy by hand delivery or mail; email filing does not meet the rule and inability to courier does not justify non‑compliance.
27 Mar 2018
The act of bankruptcy occurred at the expiry of 20 September 2017 so the three-month filing period required the application to be filed by 20 December 2017; the application was effectively filed a day late and electronic transmission of a copy of a cheque did not satisfy the requirement to lodge the filing fee under High Court Rule 1.3; because the court cannot extend the statutory time limit in s 13(b) the strike-out order stands and the recall is refused.
18 Mar 2015
The appeals under s245 were out of time because service of the notice of appeal on the Tribunal did not occur within the mandatory 28-day period required by s245(2) read with r20.6; the Court cannot extend that statutory appeals period once expired. The applicants' judicial review was timely; leave to proceed with judicial review is granted because the Tribunal misapplied legal principles concerning religious persecution by failing to assess whether compelled religious observance or penalties for refusal in an Islamic conscript army could amount to persecution (serious harm plus failure of st…
15 Aug 2012
The Court exercised its discretion to award costs to both respondents on the 2B scale because the appellant failed to comply with the High Court Rules (late filing, non-service, failure to file with the District Court) and did not take the opportunity to remedy breaches; costs were fixed at a 2B daily rate with specified fractional allowances for joint memorandum preparation and attendance, resulting in awards of $995 to each respondent.
23 Jul 2010
Application dismissed because the applicant failed to comply with the mandatory statutory time limits in s145A LTA and procedural requirements (no leave to proceed by originating application and no timely supporting affidavit), the caveat description was vague and did not disclose an arguable caveatable interest, and the applicant had delayed unacceptably; accordingly there was no serious issue to be tried and the caveat could not be maintained.
4 Feb 2010
Because the defendant accepted liability for at least the judgment sum and did not establish any substantial legal defence or other grounds to set aside the default judgment, the application to set aside is dismissed and the default judgment may be sealed and executed.