27 Sept 2022
Because the appellant failed to pay security for costs and was therefore not entitled to apply for allocation of a hearing date under r 37(2), and having persistently failed to comply with the security obligation within the time extended by the Court, the appeal was properly struck out under r 37(1) of the Court of Appeal (Civil) Rules 2005.
29 Nov 2019
The recall application was dismissed because there were no grounds to recall under r 8A, the application constituted an abuse of process given prior determinations and procedural delays, and the Court exercised its power to prevent further abuse by barring further recall applications in the proceeding.
8 Oct 2015
Registrar's decision upheld because appellant has substantial funds on deposit but has declined or failed to provide access or information about those funds and has not pursued the proper statutory route under the Protection of Personal and Property Rights Act 1988 to appoint a manager; impecuniosity was not established for the purposes of dispensing with security for costs and the appellant must pay the ordered security or face strike‑out.
22 Nov 2013
The Court dismissed the applicant's costs application because the 27 March 2012 judgment finally resolved costs in CA567/2007 by ordering the applicant to pay the first respondents' costs; the Supreme Court's reversal of the earlier interlocutory costs order did not entitle the applicant to an award of costs in this Court, and the existing security for costs ($4,740) is to be released to the first respondents once their costs and disbursements relating to CA567/2007 are calculated.
27 Jul 2010
The appeals were struck out because the appellant declined to pay court‑fixed security and filing fees, took no steps to advance the appeals, did not seek review of the Registrar's refusals, and the underlying High Court proceedings had no real prospect of success (justifying strike out and indemnity costs).