26 Apr 2021
The second Notice of Motion for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal was an abuse of process because the applicant had been directed to apply to the Appeal Committee within the prescribed time and the issues raised (including panel composition) did not fall within the scope of these appeals; accordingly the second application was struck out and dismissed.
24 Jul 2020
Leave to appeal was refused because (a) issues as to the composition and recusal of CFA judges were the subject of a different appeal (CACV 552/2019) and thus could not form the basis for leave in these proceedings, and (b) the remaining procedural complaint under Rule 7 was not reasonably arguable because the applicant failed to rebut the reasons given by the trial judge; consequently the applicant did not raise a reasonably arguable question of sufficient public importance under s22(1)(b) Cap 484.
26 Mar 2020
The appeals are dismissed: the Registrar is not under a duty to give reasons when issuing a Rule 7 summons; issuance of a Rule 7 summons is an intermediate procedural decision not amenable to judicial review in the circumstances; prior adverse rulings do not establish bias warranting recusal; where the Appeal Committee has dismissed the leave applications any challenge to the Registrar is academic and not justiciable.