12 Jun 2019
The applicant’s delay in seeking leave was substantial and unexplained; the intended judicial review lacked merit because the Board’s adverse credibility finding was within its fact‑finding province and showed no public law error, so there was no reasonable prospect of success under s14AA and leave to appeal must be refused.
26 Feb 2019
The Order 14A summons was rightly dismissed because the boundary dispute raised factual issues (including the accuracy and relevance of competing plans) that required expert and viva voce evidence and could not be resolved summarily; the defendants' proposed grounds of appeal had no reasonable prospect of success; accordingly leave to appeal was refused and the appeal was struck out.
6 Jul 2018
Leave refused because the Plaintiff's proposed grounds of appeal do not demonstrate a reasonable prospect of success and there is no other reason in the interests of justice to hear the appeals; the court properly exercised discretion to refuse further disclosure (to avoid collateral/satellite litigation and because disclosure against paying companies sufficed for preservation) and correctly resolved the taxation/indemnity issues as set out in its prior written decisions.
1 Aug 2016
The Court ruled that committal proceedings brought by motion under Order 52 are civil causes or matters for the purpose of the High Court Ordinance and may properly be intituled as civil appeals (CACVs); section 50 applies to interlocutory orders made in committal proceedings; however section 50 does not displace the leave requirement introduced by section 14AA for interlocutory appeals (except where Order 59 expressly exempts committal and related orders); therefore leave is required for interlocutory appeals in committal proceedings and a rolled‑up hearing on leave and the substantive appea…
1 Aug 2016
The Court concluded that committal proceedings brought by motion under Order 52, though prosecuting criminal contempt, are civil in procedural character and therefore the appeals are civil causes or matters; section 50 applies to interlocutory orders in such committal proceedings but does not displace the leave requirement in section 14AA for interlocutory appeals (subject to the specific exemptions in Order 59 Rule 21 for committal orders and their discharge/variation); consequently leave is required for the interlocutory appeals in issue and a rolled-up hearing of leave and substantive appe…
1 Aug 2016
Appeals from the committal proceedings before the Court of First Instance brought under Order 52 are civil causes or matters for the purposes of appeal to the Court of Appeal; s50 applies to interlocutory orders in committal proceedings but does not nullify the procedural leave requirement in s14AA except where Rule 21(1)(e) and 21(4) of Order 59 expressly exempt orders for committal or their discharge/variation; Rules of the High Court govern procedure and HKBoR arts 10 and 11 protections apply to alleged contemnors; directed rolled-up hearing on 18–19 August 2016 to hear leave applications…
1 Aug 2016
The Court held that committal proceedings for criminal contempt instituted by motion under Order 52 are civil causes or matters for the purposes of appeal procedure; Section 50 applies to interlocutory orders in committal proceedings but does not override the leave requirement in Section 14AA (except where Order 59 Rule 21 expressly exempts committal orders affecting personal liberty), and therefore leave is required for interlocutory appeals save for the statutory exceptions; articles 10 and 11 HKBoR protections nonetheless apply.
1 Aug 2016
The appeals in the committal proceedings brought by motion under Order 52 are properly characterized as civil appeals for the purposes of the High Court Ordinance and the Rules of the High Court; section 50 applies to interlocutory orders in committal proceedings but does not negate the procedural leave requirement in section 14AA for interlocutory appeals (subject to exemptions in Order 59 Rule 21 for committal, discharge or variation orders); HKBoR protections nonetheless apply due to potential penal consequences.
7 Apr 2011
The judge found on the evidence that the 1st to 3rd defendants had usurped the estate's rights as holder of 99.8% of Bowdex and acted as intermeddlers/executors de son tort; the plaintiff as beneficiary therefore had sufficient interest and there was a real risk of further depletion justifying appointment of interim receivers to preserve the estate; the defendants had no reasonable prospect of success on appeal under s14AA and leave was refused; the stay was refused and the costs order nisi was maintained requiring the 1st to 7th defendants to pay the plaintiff's costs (certificate for three…