15 Aug 2025
The applicant's grounds were repetitive, without merit and did not satisfy the s.22(1)(b) requirement that the appeal involve issues of great and general or public importance; the trial judge's conduct did not cause the late filing and the court is not obliged to give legal advice; accordingly leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal is refused.
28 Jul 2020
The court varied the earlier costs order nisi: bearing in mind the parties' conduct, the plaintiff's inflexible approach and failure to narrow issues, and the defendant's attempts to settle and provide documents, the defendant must pay two-thirds of the costs of the Originating Summons to the plaintiff (excluding the costs of reproducing the Solicitors' Guide save for 7 specified pages), with certificate for counsel, to be taxed if not agreed; and the costs of the defendant's variation application are to be paid by the plaintiff to the defendant with a certificate for one counsel, to be taxed…
17 Jul 2020
Leave to file the variation summons out of time was granted because there was no prejudice to the respondents and the substantive variation was raised within time and argued on the papers; however the variation summons was dismissed and indemnity costs were ordered because the applicants pursued an application that was untenable in law (lack of jurisdiction to order the affidavit) and had been put on notice by prior correspondence and authority, such conduct justified indemnity costs.
15 Jun 2017
The applicants failed to satisfy the statutory threshold in s22(1)(b) of the Court of Final Appeal Ordinance by not proving that the appeal raised questions of great and general or public importance; non-compliance with the Practice Direction (failure to file written submissions) further undermined the application, and consequently leave to appeal was refused.
5 Aug 2013
Because the plaintiffs' claims, as framed and viewed at their highest based on recently disclosed documents, exceeded the District Court monetary jurisdiction and there was no allegation of mala fides or conclusive contradiction at the interlocutory stage, the District Court was obliged under s41(1) DCO to transfer the Main Actions to the Court of First Instance; similarly the Harbour Base Actions were transferred to be heard with the Main Actions, trial dates vacated, and costs ordered as costs in the cause with certificate for one counsel.
26 Sept 2008
Because a refusal of leave by the Court of Appeal is not a judgment that permits an appeal to the Court of Final Appeal, the court lacked jurisdiction to grant leave and the application for leave was refused.
31 Jul 2008
Where an applicant orally abandons an appeal at the hearing and the court considers and dismisses the application, the court is functus officio and cannot permit withdrawal of that abandonment; the prior dismissal therefore stands.
26 Oct 2007
Leave to appeal was refused because the Deputy District Judge's orders were properly founded on objective construction of the Deed, supported by evidence (including full disclosure) and a legitimate exercise of judicial discretion; the decree nisi is valid and prior attempts to challenge it failed; the additional administrative and rectification applications were either irrelevant or outside the appellate court's jurisdiction; accordingly both summonses were dismissed and no substantive relief was warranted.
5 Jul 2007
Where the Official Receiver withdrew the s30A objection and the Court was not called upon to determine that a valid objection had been proved, the Court has power to backdate the bankrupt's discharge to the original automatic discharge date; an interim order merely preserves the status quo and does not prevent restoration of the original discharge date when no valid objection remains and no prejudice arises.
17 Oct 2006
Section 52A(2) of the High Court Ordinance bars the court from awarding costs against a person who was not a party to the relevant proceedings; David Liu was a non‑party (not a contributory or director at the hearing) and therefore the court lacked jurisdiction to order costs against him and correctly ordered that costs be paid out of the Company's assets; the joinder application was properly refused as being raised first in this Court without special circumstances.