6 Sept 2022
The Recorder's order refusing to strike out the Statement of Claim was interlocutory under the application test and therefore s 14AA(1) required leave to appeal; the Notice of Appeal filed without leave was improperly filed and was struck out.
6 Apr 2017
Determinations finalizing the Main Judgment that go to the substance of the unfair prejudice remedy are to be treated as part of the final judgment (no leave required). Directions solely concerning the future valuation process (identity of valuers and costs allocation) are interlocutory and in principle require leave. Leave to appeal in respect of the relevant parts of the March Decision was refused on the merits. The summons for leave and for a stay of execution was dismissed and execution of the buy-out order will not be stayed; costs awarded to the petitioner.
3 Jul 2009
The application to stay execution pending appeal was dismissed because the order under s.221 was interlocutory, no leave to appeal had been sought as required by statute and practice, rendering the appeal incompetent; costs were awarded to the liquidators on a gross sum assessment of HK$43,050.
2 Feb 2001
The application to extend time was dismissed because the 11‑day delay was inexcusable (the solicitor's mistake as to the appeal period was unexplained), the appellant failed to demonstrate a real prospect of success on the merits given that inexcusable delay, and absence of prejudice to respondents is not a ground for extension; accordingly discretion was exercised against the appellant.
17 May 1990
Section 105 must be construed to permit a stated case only after a magistrate has made a final determination of the complaint, information or charge; because Mr. Line had not finally disposed of the matter (the proceedings were adjourned and remitted), he had no jurisdiction to state a case and this Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the purported appeal, which was therefore dismissed.