3 Apr 2020
Fee waiver was properly refused because the proposed appeal did not involve a matter of genuine public interest under reg 5(2)(b), was procedurally and factually futile given the inauspicious history and delay, and the applicant did not claim inability to pay.
24 May 2018
The proposed proceedings are an abuse of process and do not disclose a prima facie case: the criminal appeal had already been dismissed as without jurisdiction and the applicant cannot pursue defamation for remarks about a third party; accordingly leave to commence the proceedings is refused.
11 Dec 2013
The Registrar did not err in refusing to dispense with security for costs because the proposed appeal did not raise matters of public significance or exceptional circumstances; repetition of similar claims does not confer public interest status; the Crown is entitled to ordinary protection by security for costs despite its resources; accordingly the Registrar's decision is upheld and the applicant must provide security of $5,560 within 20 working days.
9 Aug 2013
The application to recall the judgment is dismissed because no very special reason exists; the proposed judicial review was properly rejected under s88B(2) as an abuse of process and lacking a prima facie ground since it amounted to a collateral attack and re-litigation of issues decided by Judges rather than a proper ground for review of the Commissioner's investigation.