The Court of Appeal refused a self-represented appellant's application to stay delivery of judgment on his leave to appeal application. The Court held that the fact that ancillary matters raised in a separate interlocutory application (including recusal of a judge, police investigation of alleged corruption, and appointment of an interstate judge) had not been resolved did not justify staying delivery of the substantive judgment, particularly where none of the outstanding orders had a reasonable prospect of success and the appellant had not sought an adjournment at the substantive hearing.
The full text is available to signed-in members.