31 Jul 2020
The Court declined leave because the proposed appeal did not identify a question of law and raised only factual issues lacking general or public importance, and there were no other reasons to justify granting leave; costs were awarded to the respondent.
31 Mar 2011
The Court allowed substitution of Sonsram as plaintiff under r 4.52 but imposed conditions to prevent injustice: immediate payment of specified prior costs ($13,195.18 and scale costs awarded on 4 June 2010) and provision of $40,000 cash or equivalent security to the Registrar; the proceeding is stayed until those conditions are met; costs on the substitution application lie where they fall, and the defendant is awarded costs on the security application on a 2B basis plus disbursements.