6 Mar 2026
Application for extension of time was dismissed because the applicant was out of time by one working day and expressly declined to pursue the intended appeal, indicating abandonment of the proceedings.
5 Dec 2023
The summons for leave to appeal or extension of time is dismissed because the intended appeal is without reasonable prospect of success: the Costs Orders remain valid and binding until set aside and the BA's issuance of a later building order does not nullify those court orders; therefore extension of time is refused and leave denied if required.
28 Jul 2022
The applicant's unexplained failure to issue an originating summons within the mandatory period (and over a two-year delay) justified the court exercising its powers under Order 42 r 2 and Practice Direction-16.5 to order that unless the originating summons is issued within 14 days the application is deemed abandoned, the leave is set aside and the application dismissed forthwith.
24 Sept 2021
The applicant expressly abandoned the application and sought closure; because the applicant had no intention of proceeding and granting leave would be otiose, the court exercised its discretion to dismiss the application for leave to apply for judicial review in accordance with established authority.
12 Mar 2021
The leave application was dismissed because the applicant affirmatively withdrew his application and made clear he had no intention to proceed, rendering the application abandoned and justifying dismissal.
15 Dec 2011
The court refused to revive the abandoned application because there was no basis to conclude the applicant's mind did not accompany his signing of the notice of abandonment; therefore the abandonment was valid and the application to revive must be refused.
12 Nov 2007
Leave to apply for judicial review was refused and the proceedings were dismissed because the applicant failed to attend the hearing, communicated she would not participate and appeared to have abandoned the proceedings; no order as to costs was made.
5 Nov 1996
The court found the Official Receiver's application to vest the money had no sustainable legal basis under s.198 of the Companies Ordinance, the procedural steps were misconceived, and therefore the Official Receiver is liable for the costs reserved by Deputy Judge Peard; the appropriate scale is common fund basis rather than indemnity, and the costs of the three sets of proceedings reserved and of the hearing were ordered to be borne by the Official Receiver and paid to the 1st Defendant.