7 Dec 2022
The plaintiff failed to meet the s63A(2) threshold because the defendant's ministerial receipt defence and related assertions raised triable issues appropriate for trial rather than a summary disposal; the plaintiff's criticisms were fact-sensitive and invited an impermissible mini-trial on affidavits, so leave to appeal was refused.
24 Jun 2020
Leave to appeal was refused because the applicant failed to identify any error of law or procedural unfairness, provided no draft grounds or particulars of appeal, and therefore failed to demonstrate that the appeal had a reasonable prospect of success or any other reason in the interests of justice.
23 Sept 2019
The court held there was no error of law or procedural unfairness in the Board's process or decision and that the applicant had no reasonable prospect of success; accordingly leave to apply for judicial review was refused.
21 Aug 2019
Leave to appeal refused because applicants failed to demonstrate a reasonable prospect of success or any other reason in the interests of justice: they produced no draft grounds, could not justify a four-month delay, and did not show error of law or procedural unfairness, rendering the intended appeal hopeless.
3 May 2019
The appeal was without reasonable prospect of success; under s13 the court may order costs to the prosecution and under s15(a) such costs must be compensatory. The court assessed 7.5 reasonable hours at HK$3,900 per hour and ordered the appellant to pay HK$29,250, disallowing additional preparatory time of the substitute prosecutor beyond 1.5 hours of hearing attendance.
25 Apr 2019
The joint medical report of 9 January 2018 established that the plaintiff's frozen shoulders and trigger fingers were unrelated to the accident and, considering the medical opinions and the plaintiff's employment, by that date the plaintiff ought to have known there was no reasonable prospect of recovering net damages near the Small Claims Tribunal ceiling; therefore the court varied the costs order nisi to assess the plaintiff's costs from 9 January 2018 on the Small Claims Tribunal scale and the earlier costs on the District Court scale.
15 Mar 2018
The Tribunal refused leave: Paragraph 2 Schedule 2 confines reserve price to the lot's redevelopment potential 'on its own' and excludes marriage value/Clay Factor as a basis to set the statutory reserve price at the leave stage; Fully H K Investments is binding and the proposed appeal has no reasonable prospect of success nor any other reason in the interests of justice under s.11AA(6).
24 Jan 2017
Defendant failed to discharge the burden of proving exceptional circumstances to displace the prima facie entitlement to costs under Order 22 r 20(1); consequently the summons seeking an alternative costs order was dismissed and costs were awarded to the plaintiff, to be taxed if not agreed, with plaintiff's own costs taxed per legal aid regulations.
24 Nov 2016
Applying the 'old practice' (sanctioned payment and acceptance pre-dated Wong), the parties agreed District Court scale and expert evidence showed no reasonable prospect of an award above District Court jurisdiction; therefore defendant must pay plaintiff's costs to be taxed on the District Court scale and Littlewoods must pay the defendant the costs of the application.
28 Oct 2016
Defendant was entitled to an order that costs (other than costs of and occasioned by this application) be taxed on the District Court scale because the defendant gave prior warning and the court found, on the evidence available at commencement and up to acceptance of the sanctioned payment, there was no reasonable prospect of an award exceeding District Court jurisdiction; plaintiff's evidence of full remittance was inadequate and conventional dependency assumptions applied.