6 Jul 2023
The application for leave to appeal was refused because it was substantially out of time without explanation and the proposed appeal had no reasonable prospect of success; therefore neither extension nor leave should be granted under s63A(2) of the District Court Ordinance.
31 May 2023
Leave to appeal refused because the plaintiff failed to demonstrate a reasonable prospect of success or other interest of justice: the pleaded case is properly one of personal injury/medical negligence warranting transfer to the PI List, the plaintiff produced no cogent legal grounds or requisite expert evidence, and the high threshold for upsetting case management orders was not met; related applications (amendments, directions, stay) were dismissed and costs awarded to the defendant.
30 Oct 2018
Leave to appeal out of time was refused because the applicant was out of time by more than three and a half months, such delay was held excessive and the applicant offered no adequate excuse; earlier leave to apply for judicial review had been refused for lack of any reasonably arguable ground, so no extension was justified.
26 Oct 2018
The notices of appeal were filed outside the one‑month statutory period and the payment requirement under s14(1)(b) was not met; no applications were brought under ss14(5B) or 14(1B) to cure those defects; an appeal thus improperly constituted is incompetent and maintaining it without taking steps to make it competent is an abuse of process. Accordingly the notices were struck out and costs awarded.
21 Dec 2015
Application for leave to appeal out of time was dismissed because the short nine-day delay was self-inflicted and inexcusable and, more importantly, the intended appeal had no substance or reasonable prospects of success; the Judge did not err in refusing leave to apply for judicial review and was entitled to proceed while the applicant was overseas.
21 Dec 2001
The oral stay was valid and the plaintiff was entitled to rely on it and to appeal within 14 days; the Master's stay was justified but must be limited to the time necessary to resolve the defendant's representation, therefore the appeal is allowed and the court substitutes a time-limited stay ending 5:00 pm on 18 January 2002.