Justice Strekaf dismissed the Applicant's request for permission to appeal a Decision by a single Judge to a three-Judge panel. The matter arose from three Actions in which liability was admitted, but the Trial Judge dismissed the Applicant’s claim for damages. The Applicant, subject to an Interim Court Access Restriction Order, initially required and was granted permission to appeal specific grounds of that Decision, but had his Application to stay the Trial Costs dismissed. The Applicant subsequently brought two further Applications, seeking amendments to the Claims and other relief, which were dismissed by Strekaf J.A. due to procedural and substantive deficiencies (the September 19 Applications). The Applicant then sought to appeal the dismissal of the September 19 Applications to a three-Judge panel.

The Court found that, pursuant to Rules 14.5(1)(a) and (2), permission to appeal Decisions of a single Judge is required and should only be granted in exceptional circumstances. Strekaf J.A. emphasized that the Applicant failed to meet the high threshold required, as the proposed Appeal did not raise any serious questions of law or justify assigning further judicial resources. The Decision was consistent with Rule 1.2, which promotes timely and cost-effective resolution of disputes.

On the issue of Costs, Justice Strekaf clarified that Rule 10.30 allows for Costs to be awarded even after a final Order is entered, dismissing the Applicant’s argument that the Court lacked jurisdiction to address Costs for earlier Applications. For the September 19 Applications and the present Application, which were dismissed, the Respondents were awarded Costs. Regarding earlier Applications for permission to appeal and to stay Trial Costs, Strekaf J.A. applied Rule 14.88, the default rule for Cost Awards, and determined that all parties would bear their own Costs due to mixed success.