8 Jan 2025
The defendant's seven‑month unexplained delay was serious; he failed to demonstrate a real prospect of success on appeal and provided no reasonable explanation or additional reason to justify a stay. Therefore the court refused to extend time for filing the appeal and refused the stay of execution; costs were awarded to the plaintiff.
18 Mar 2021
The judge refused the extension of time because the applicant's explanation (waiting for return of property and alleged advice from counsel) was not credible and the forfeiture order was agreed by counsel and supported by overwhelming evidence linking the HK$24,000 to drug trafficking; consequently the out‑of‑time leave application would in any event have been refused as devoid of merit.
1 Mar 2021
Leave to apply for judicial review was granted because the Board erred in law by refusing to extend time without considering the merits of the Director's substantive decisions and without taking into account relevant matters within its knowledge as required by s37ZT and established authorities; that failure rendered the Board's decisions unlawful and justifies permission to seek full judicial review.
13 Oct 2020
The Inter Partes Summons was dismissed because the respondent failed to pursue it properly and diligently (no grounds, no affirmation of service, no evidence of seeking legal aid extension, and no call‑over), rendering the application purposeless and insufficient to affect execution of the judgment.
20 May 2019
The application for an extension of time was refused because the applicant failed to provide particulars or documentary evidence of imprisonment or detention constituting an excuse for delay, and his subsequent filing after the earlier decision undermined the credibility of his explanation.
30 Jun 2011
The master’s order was affirmed because, on a provisional assessment, the defendant demonstrated sufficient prospects of success on a genuine factual dispute (denial that any loan was advanced) such that the default judgment should be set aside and the matter resolved at interlocutory steps or trial; the short delay did not preclude granting an extension of time to bring the appeal.
18 Feb 2008
The application for extension of time was refused because the overall justice did not require extension: the intended appeal lacked reasonable prospects given the judge's findings that the Company was defunct (loss of substratum) and that there was no binding share transfer agreement, and the asserted grounds of error (misconduct disentitling relief and denial of opportunity to be heard) were unpersuasive on the record.