Evgeny Orlov v Anza

Evgeny Orlov applied for a review of the decision of the Registrar, who had refused to waive the filing fee on Orlov’s application for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal had struck out Orlov’s appeal on the basis that he would not agree to the condition that counsel be appointed by the Court to contradict his arguments. Orlov had sought leave to appeal on the basis that the Court of Appeal had imposed a barrier to him appealing because of the costs of appointing counsel. Orlov also sought waiver of the filing fee. The Registrar refused to waive the fee, finding that Orlov’s appeal did not concern a matter of genuine public interest and was not unlikely to be continued unless the fee was waived. Orlov appealed to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court held that the Registrar’s power to waive a fee only arose if the Registrar was satisfied that the appeal concerned a matter of genuine public interest and was unlikely to be continued unless the fee was waived. The Supreme Court held that the Registrar’s decision to refuse to waive the fee was correct because Orlov had not satisfied the second requirement, namely that it was unlikely that the appeal would be continued unless the fee was waived.

The legal issues in this case were whether the Registrar had correctly exercised his discretion to refuse to waive the filing fee and whether Orlov’s intended appeal concerned a matter of genuine public interest and was unlikely to be continued unless the fee was waived. The Supreme Court held that the Registrar had correctly exercised his discretion because Orlov had not satisfied the second requirement of reg 5(2)(b)(ii) of the Fees Regulations. The Supreme Court also held that Orlov’s intended appeal did not concern a matter of genuine public interest.

The Supreme Court confirmed the Registrar’s decision to refuse to waive the filing fee. The Supreme Court held that Orlov’s intended appeal did not concern a matter of genuine public interest and was not unlikely to be continued unless the fee was waived. The Supreme Court held that the Registrar had correctly exercised his discretion in refusing to waive the fee. The Supreme Court did not need to determine whether Orlov’s intended appeal concerned a matter of genuine public interest because Orlov had not satisfied the second requirement of reg 5(2)(b)(ii) of the Fees Regulations.

No further orders were made. The Supreme Court confirmed the Registrar’s decision to refuse to waive the filing fee.