3 Dec 2010
Because the parties brought opposing Order 86 applications with no prospect of further trial or steps, the Court of Appeal concluded the decision was final in effect and therefore fell within Order 22(1)(a) Cap.484; accordingly leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal was granted and a stay ordered.
29 Oct 2010
The court exercised its discretion to grant the extension of time sought because the purchasers had sought to appeal promptly and any procedural misstep (applying for leave instead of filing a notice) caused only delay and costs and did not prejudice their substantive rights, particularly in light of Order 59 r21 provisions; accordingly the extension was ordered and leave as already granted in part below was left to stand.
27 Apr 1998
Summary judgment was inappropriate because the circumstances raised serious and non‑frivolous possibilities (including potential collusion and that the plaintiff controlled key facts) which warranted investigation at trial; Clause 27 does not necessarily operate on an unsubstantiated third‑party claim, so the defendant had an arguable case and the appeal must be allowed.
3 Nov 1988
Order 86 does not permit a defendant to apply for summary judgment on a counterclaim; accordingly the summary judgment entered below was improperly granted and must be set aside.
31 Jul 1980
The 2nd Defendant could not establish any proprietary claim to the suit premises; the lis pendens did not extinguish the plaintiff's contractual right to specific performance; the 1st Defendant had sufficient authority as administrator to contract; statutory non‑registration did not render the sale void as against the plaintiff, therefore the plaintiff's summons for specific performance succeeds and the 2nd Defendant's counterclaim fails.