15 Mar 2016
The application was dismissed because it was filed by a non‑lawyer on behalf of the company (contrary to Re G J Mannix) and was filed one day after the ten working day limit under s 290(2); s 290(3) precludes extension of the filing period, therefore the court must dismiss the application.
17 Aug 2015
The Registrar correctly declined to consider an out‑of‑time application because r 35(7) contains a mandatory 20 working day limit and she has no discretion to extend it; although a Judge could extend time under r 5(2), applying the Reekie test the appeal is not reasonably arguable and is a collateral attack on prior findings, so no extension should be granted and security for costs must remain payable.
29 Sept 2014
The Registrar correctly refused to dispense with security because the application was filed outside the 20 working day period established by the rules and enforcement of that time limit furthers the prompt resolution purpose of r 35; additionally, even if considered on the merits, dispensation was unwarranted because the appeal's potential benefit did not justify requiring the respondent to defend the judgment without usual protection as to costs and a solvent litigant would not sensibly pursue this appeal given ongoing interest and limited relief sought.
9 Jun 2011
The application was filed after the statutory 10 working day period required by s290(2), an application is not made until filed, and s290(3) cannot be invoked where no extant timely application exists; therefore the Court lacked jurisdiction and the application must be dismissed.
26 Jul 2006
The debtor's application to set aside the bankruptcy notice was dismissed as it was filed outside the s 19(1)(a) timeframe rendering it a nullity; however the creditor's petition was adjourned to allow time to determine whether the payment made to the Registrar clears, since cleared funds could satisfy s 23 and affect the petition.