8 Sept 2020
In light of the Court of Final Appeal decisions in H and AH, the refusal to extend time which effectively prevents an application for leave to apply for judicial review is a decision from which an appeal lies as of right; accordingly the court extended time for the Applicant to file her notice of appeal within 14 days.
27 Aug 2020
Given the Court of Final Appeal authority that such refusals fall within Order 59 r21(1)(g) and are appealable as of right, and because the applicant was within the 14‑day appeal period when he issued his summons, the court exercised its discretion to extend time and permitted the applicant to file his notice of appeal within 14 days of the order.
30 Sept 2013
The appeal was dismissed because the appellant's principal case of joint and several liability was not pleaded and was unsupported by the documentary and witness evidence; the trial judge's finding of an unpleaded oral agreement imposing liability on RHL was without pleaded basis and was rightly reversed by the Court of Appeal, leaving no valid cause of action against the respondent.
26 Jul 2013
Leave to appeal was refused because the appeal was from a bankruptcy order (not the underlying judgment debt) so s.22(1)(a) did not apply; the questions posed were not of great general or public importance under s.22(1)(b); and no miscarriage of justice was established to justify leave.
23 Jul 2012
Leave to appeal was refused because the asserted right of appeal under s22(1)(a) did not meet the immediacy requirement and the questions advanced were predominantly case- and fact-specific rather than issues of great general or public importance; antecedent authority relied upon by the applicant had been overtaken by later CFA decisions and any commentary on the existence of a judicial discretion in respect of Model Law violations would be obiter.
29 Jun 2012
The court held that the letter of indemnity did not create a liquidated claim; indemnity claims are generally unliquidated unless a fixed sum is specified. Consequently the 2nd Third Party was not entitled to appeal as of right on the basis that the judgment exceeded HK$1,000,000, and leave to appeal was refused.
28 Dec 2011
The refusal of the interlocutory injunction was an interlocutory order and did not fall within Order 59 Rule 21(1)(a); Hong Da failed to demonstrate sufficient prospects of success on appeal or any compelling interest of justice to grant leave; accordingly the application for a direction that the appeal lies as of right and the application for leave to appeal were dismissed, subject to a limited interim injunction and specified undertakings.
4 Nov 2011
Leave to appeal was granted as of right under s22(1)(a) in respect of the dismissed HK$17.8 million repayment claim; leave under s22(1)(b) was refused because the other issues raised were fact‑specific and not questions of general or public importance; the applications for stay of execution and continuation of the Mareva injunction and lis pendens were dismissed for lack of exceptional circumstances and lack of prospects of success; conditional security of HK$400,000 was ordered to be paid into court within 42 days.
21 Oct 2009
The Court held the applicant had no appeal as of right because the claim was unliquidated and, on the 'or otherwise' limb, refused leave because there were no exceptional circumstances or points of general or public importance; the Court also concluded the Lands Tribunal had erred in law and therefore set aside its order and remitted Heads A and E for determination according to law, and ordered costs against the applicant.
30 Apr 2009
Leave to appeal was refused because an appeal from a winding up order grounded on inability to pay debts does not fall within section 22(1)(a); the applicant failed to show exceptional circumstances under the 'or otherwise' limb of section 22(1)(b), and the Quistclose argument was a new, improperly advanced point that did not justify leave.