22 Jul 2021
The Court dismissed the Notice of Motion because the applicant's grounds did not address the sole basis for the judge's dismissal—res judicata—so there was no reasonably arguable appeal to the Court of Final Appeal, and no basis under section 22(1)(b); procedural debarment for non‑compliance justified determination on the papers.
14 May 2020
The court refused the application for leave to appeal because the appellant failed to demonstrate that the proposed appeal raised issues of general or public importance or other exceptional reasons under s22, and because he repeatedly and deliberately breached Practice Direction 2.1 by filing numerous unauthorised affidavits and documents which the court declined to consider.
24 Oct 2014
Because the professionals failed to comply with Practice Direction PD 5.3 and the non-compliance hindered the court's preparation, the court exercised its power under PD 5.3 para 10 to order costs: the costs of the hearing bundles are to be borne by those who instructed plaintiff's counsel and 25% of counsel's brief fee is disallowed to reflect the breach.