22 Dec 2010
No point of law of great and general public importance was established: the judge fulfilled the duty to secure as fair a trial as practicable despite the non-availability of certain prosecution witnesses, and the question whether conduct amounted to an adverse admission was fact-specific; accordingly leave to appeal under s32 Cap.484 was refused.
16 May 2002
The court held that the recital 'after taking into account the sum of $45,308' simply explains the arithmetic basis of the payment into court and does not amount to an admission of liability or of the amount paid; paragraph 5 is legally unsustainable and is struck out under Order 18 Rule 19.
21 Oct 1999
The Court held the trial judge was entitled to infer that the applicant knew the documents were false and acted dishonestly from the consistent pattern of conduct—presentation of forged documents and continuing deception of buyers after suspecting or knowing of falsity—after rejecting innocent explanations; accordingly leave to appeal against conviction was refused.