24 Mar 2026
Extension of time was refused because the applicant failed to give any valid reason for the roughly two month delay and the intended appeal had no prospect of success: the grounds were general, vague and attacked the Board rather than identifying any error in the Leave Decision; absence of entitlement to language or legal assistance did not convert bare assertions into viable grounds.
4 Sept 2025
The Court held the Executors could be substituted for the Committee because the cause of action survived the deceased, the Committee had been discharged by operation of law, substitution under Order 15 r7 and r8(4) was appropriate and not prejudicial despite delay; on sentencing, the defendant's disclosure was late and inadequate, showed failure to regard the order's significance and did not purge contempt, and an immediate custodial sentence of two months was warranted with an order to provide further disclosure within 42 days of release and costs to the plaintiff on an indemnity basis.
3 Jun 2025
Refused extension of time because the four-month delay was substantial and inordinate, the applicant failed to provide a good reason for the delay (change of mind is not acceptable), and failed to put forward draft grounds or identify any error in the decision so there was no realistic prospect of success; extension would therefore be futile.
30 May 2024
The delay of approximately two months and three weeks was inordinate; the applicants failed to provide a credible explanation or corroborating evidence of late receipt; they also failed to identify any arguable error or produce draft grounds showing a real prospect of success; balancing the relevant factors, extension of time would be futile and must be refused.
4 May 2021
Refusal of the extension of time was lawful because the applicant failed to provide an acceptable explanation for the delay or non-receipt of the order, and the proposed appeal had no arguable merits; the discretionary factors (length of delay, reasons, prospects, prejudice) did not favour granting an extension.
9 Mar 2017
Default judgment was set aside because the 4th defendant provided affidavit evidence showing an arguable defence with a real prospect of success and an explanation for delay which, when weighed against the ability to compensate prejudice by payment into court and costs, justified setting aside; relief was conditional on payment into court of HK$466,500 plus HK$10,000 interest, discharge of the Mareva injunction, and directions to file a defence within 14 days.