Pursuant to Rule 14.48, the Applicants (the Appellants) sought an Order extending time to file their Appeal material, an Order staying the payment of the Costs awarded, and a stay of the Appeal proceedings pending the Respondent’s response to a written demand for further information. The Respondent did not oppose the stay of Costs pending the outcome of the Appeal or the extension of time; however, the Respondent did oppose the Application to stay the proceedings pending a response for further information.

This Application was dealt with in writing pursuant to Rule 14.51.

In the underlying Appeal, the Applicant was attempting to Appeal the Decision of Associate Chief Justice Nielsen. The Applicant’s claim had been brought before Associate Chief Justice Nielsen as an Apparently Vexatious Application or Proceeding (“AVAP”). Associate Chief Justice Nielsen had ordered, pursuant to Civil Practice Note No 7, that the Applicant had 14 days to provide the Court with written submissions to “show cause” as to why the AVAP should not be struck pursuant Rule 3.68. Associate Chief Justice Nielsen reviewed the written submissions provided by the Applicant and determined that the AVAP should be struck pursuant to Rule 3.68.

In ultimately dismissing in the Appellants’ Applications, Justice Crighton identified that, in accordance with Rule 14.13 and 14.14, the Applicants’ Appeal is a standard Appeal. In dismissing the Applications, Justice Crighton held that the Applicants’ should not require more time, that the Notice of Appeal did not identify an arguable issue, and that the Applicants failed demonstrate why the proceedings should be stayed pending the Respondent’s response to the written demand.