11 Jan 2021
Leave to appeal dismissed because the applicant failed to show any reasonable prospect of success on points of law: the impugned matters were either factual findings supported by evidence, not points of law, or not properly pleaded; the review decision correctly confirmed the original judgment and there was no other interest of justice to hear the appeal; costs awarded.
24 Jan 2020
The Tribunal found the 2017 Resolution valid (no disqualifying undeclared interest affected the outcome). The applicant failed to prove breach of Clause 10(c) because no evidence established increased fire risk or that insurance would be void/voidable. The management committee had power under section 34I(1)(a) BMO to approve non-structural affixations, so there was no breach of Clause 10(e) or section 34I(1)(a). The alteration was de minimis so no breach of Clause 10(g). The applicant failed to prove unreasonable interference or hazard under section 34I(1)(b). Accordingly the applicant's prim…
27 Nov 2015
Conviction upheld because the evidence supported the magistrates findings that the payments were loans/advantages accepted by a prescribed officer without Chief Executive permission contrary to s.3 POBO; corrupt motive and triviality are not required elements of the offence; the magistrate lawfully assessed credibility and good character and her findings were open on the evidence.
12 Jul 2002
Leave to appeal was granted because the judge found a realistic prospect of success on the proposed appeal and identified an arguable legal question—whether a plaintiff who wins by a small margin can legitimately be deprived of part of the costs—warranting appellate consideration despite the discretionary nature of costs orders.
13 Jul 1994
Where a defendant relies on a time of the essence contractual construction to obtain summary judgment for a short delay, the court must nevertheless refuse summary disposal if the plaintiff raises a cognizable equitable defence that relief against forfeiture may be available and there are triable issues of fact as to the vendor's conduct causing or contributing to the breach; accordingly unconditional leave to defend should be granted.
7 Sept 1983
The word 'alter' in s.42(2)(b) does not extend to mere physical damage or repair unless the damage or alteration changes the material particulars of the travel document; re‑attaching a torn page with cellotape that does not alter material particulars is not an 'alteration' within the meaning of the provision, and therefore there was insufficient evidence to sustain the conviction.
15 Jul 1983
Leave to enforce the consent order was refused because the plaintiff failed to tender goods conforming to the sample in an essential characteristic (the sample's polished/clean appearance), and therefore the plaintiff was in default and could not levy execution on the judgment, notwithstanding that consent orders are enforceable as judgments without fresh proceedings.