6 Nov 2024
Leave to appeal refused because the applicants only challenged factual findings without identifying clear or obvious error or a reasonable prospect of success; the application was not delayed; newly raised documents were not previously disclosed and were irrelevant to issues decided; no other reason existed to permit the appeal.
7 Jun 2024
Both applications for leave to appeal and the applicant's application to vary the costs order were dismissed. The court held that the grounds advanced merely rehashed trial evidence, failed to identify clear errors in the trial judge's reasoning, and did not demonstrate a reasonable prospect of success; new evidence was not admissible or credible under established tests; and variation of costs was unwarranted because settlement attempts and mediation failures did not justify departing from no costs order in the circumstances. Consequently no appeal hearing is required and no change to the cos…
9 Aug 2023
The Court dismissed the stay applications because any overlap between the New Evidence Applications and the Rule 99L Application was limited, there was no novel legal point necessitating reliance on the Judge's forthcoming ruling, and the Court of Appeal would conduct an independent assessment of the new evidence; accordingly no case-management justification for a stay and costs were awarded to BOC in the sum of HK$250,000.
13 Jun 2023
The applicant failed to demonstrate any arguable grounds of appeal that raise issues of general public importance or any other exceptional reasons to justify the Court of Final Appeal's intervention; accordingly leave to appeal is refused and the applicant is ordered to pay the respondents' costs for this application in the sum assessed at HKD 6,700.
26 Jan 2023
The court dismissed the first summons because it was an improper attempt to reopen and review the substantive judgment via a costs-variation application; the court refused to consider new evidence filed after trial because no permission was sought and no explanation given; the court refused leave to appeal under s63A(2) because the applicant failed to identify any error in the judgment or show a reasonable prospect of success or other grounds in the interests of justice; the interim costs order was therefore made absolute and costs were awarded to the respondent (HK$1,000).
25 Nov 2022
The Notice of Motion for leave to appeal was dismissed because the applicant failed to identify any question of great general or public importance as required by section 22(1)(b) HKCFAO and the intended appeal was without merit due to bare, unsupported allegations, lack of specific identified errors, and unproduced new evidence; the matters were fact-specific and did not satisfy the statutory threshold for leave.
31 Aug 2022
The Court refused leave to appeal and declined to extend time because the Notices were filed out of time, the materials failed to identify any question of sufficient public importance, the proposed appeals lacked merit (including no valid commission claim and no basis for the claimed hourly rate), and the applications to admit new evidence were unsupported; costs were awarded to the respondent.
17 Jun 2022
The Court refused permission to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal and declined to extend time because the applicant's application was overdue by five days without satisfactory explanation, the applicant failed to comply with mandatory directions and did not file any substantive or specific grounds showing a real prospect of success or an issue of public importance under Cap 484 s22(1)(b); accordingly the application and summons were dismissed and treated as abandoned where applicable.
16 Nov 2021
The court refused bail pending appeal because the applicant failed to demonstrate a strong likelihood of success on appeal or satisfy the time ground; his grounds (alleged inadequate representation, absence of fingerprints, unverified new information) did not establish a real chance of success given experienced trial counsel, the trial judge's adverse findings and the strength of the circumstantial inference of possession from discovery of the counterfeit notes under the applicant's pillow.
16 Nov 2020
The Court struck out parts of the 4th Respondent's Notice of Appeal that constituted an attempt to re-run the sub-contractor defence (the dismissed Amendment Application) without appealing the Dismissal Decision, holding such attempts to be an abuse of process; specifically the reference to §§324-328 of the Tribunal Judgment in paragraph 1 and paragraphs 8(i), (j), (l) and (m) were struck out; other grounds directed to personal liability of the named partners (as distinct from re-opening attribution) were left intact; costs awarded on an indemnity basis of 80% fixed at HK$80,000 (order nisi).