1 Sept 2023
Leave was declined because the alleged errors were case-specific and immaterial, the Tribunal had the relevant material and legitimately assessed credibility and weight of evidence, there was no seriously arguable ground of review, and the issues raised were not of sufficient general or public importance to warrant High Court review under s249(6).
29 Mar 2023
Leave for judicial review was refused because the applicant did not establish a bona fide and seriously arguable ground of review: the IPT either considered the article (albeit described imprecisely) or was entitled to give it little or no weight given provenance and content issues, the alleged factual errors were immaterial to the outcome, and the high statutory threshold for leave under s 249 was not met.
10 Aug 2020
Paragraphs 25 and 27 and paragraph 30 of Mr Kieran Grace's brief are admissible: the contested statements fall within s24 as necessary to communicate an eyewitness's perceptions and the probative value and weight remain matters for the Court to assess at trial.
10 Aug 2020
The court excluded the second sentence of paragraph 6 as inadmissible opinion and/or hearsay not within the s 24 exception; the first sentence of paragraph 6 was admissible; paragraph 20 was allowed to remain in evidence subject to its weight being assessed at trial.
26 May 2017
Leave to appeal was declined because the applicant failed to identify any question of law of general or public importance or exceptional circumstances; the IPT had considered the relevant matters and did not commit any error of law warranting appellate intervention.
5 Sept 2016
The High Court refused leave because the IPT had considered the mitigating factors, the nature and gravity of the offending and societal implications; any dispute was about weight and discretionary judgment rather than error of law, and the questions did not raise matters of sufficient general or public importance to warrant High Court determination.
3 Apr 2013
The application for leave was dismissed because the issues advanced were challenges to factual findings and the weight of medical evidence rather than bona fide and seriously arguable questions of law; the statutory scheme separates occupational and medical assessments and an occupational assessor is not qualified to provide medical opinions, so Nolan's medical comments could not convert a factual dispute into a question of law; Kelman's contemporaneous assessment was not contradicted by contemporaneous medical evidence, so no legal error was shown.
30 Aug 2012
The application for leave to appeal was refused because no question of law capable of bona fide and serious argument was identified: the District Court's factual findings were open on the evidence presented, there was no record of an application to compel midwives for cross-examination at the appeal, admission of unsigned statements was permitted under s156 and their weight was open to the Judge, and ACC's investigation and reliance on midwifery opinion and available reports did not demonstrate a legal error requiring leave to appeal.
4 May 2012
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed because the applicant's complaints raise factual disputes about the weight and credibility of evidence rather than errors of law; the judge's conclusions were open on the evidence and there was no arguable legal error warranting leave.
12 Apr 2012
The application for leave was declined because Judge Ongley's decision was a factual determination—he considered all medical evidence and reasonably preferred the respondent's medical opinions—so there was no question of law to justify leave under s162.