27 Aug 2024
Leave to appeal was refused because the applicant failed to show a reasonable prospect of success or other compelling reason: the lower judges lawfully and reasonably exercised their discretion in assessing interim maintenance and travel permission, made proportionate assessments of needs and ability to pay, and did not commit legal error warranting appellate intervention.
18 Jun 2024
Leave to appeal was refused because section 30 confers a broad discretionary power to order security which is not limited to cases of abuse or undue delay; the Tribunal was entitled to take a preliminary view of the merits and properly found that the Employer had caused delay by failing to provide required documents and particulars, and there was no arguable error of law that would justify leave to appeal.
20 Oct 2023
The summons for leave to appeal was dismissed because GNT failed to demonstrate a reasonable prospect of success: the judge did not err in relying on prior findings and evidence to conclude the plaintiff met the higher 'high probability of success' threshold for refusing security for costs, and the judge permissibly considered outstanding costs orders as a relevant circumstance in exercising the discretion under Order 23 rule 1(1) RHC.
29 May 2020
The Court of Appeal dismissed the 2nd Respondent's appeal: section 25A(a) of the Employees Compensation Assistance Ordinance is to be construed broadly so the Board, when joined, may take over the defence and adduce evidence (including witness statements) that may establish another party's liability as principal contractor to protect the Fund; admitting Yip's evidence did not unlawfully circumvent the Default Judgment or Unless Order and the judge did not misapply his discretion.
21 May 2020
The Court dismissed the summons for leave to appeal out of time because the seven‑week delay was substantial and inexcusable and, in any event, the defendants had no real prospect of success on appeal given there was no palpable error in the judge's exercise of discretion to award costs; additionally, the impugned documents were not properly before the court as evidence.
27 Sept 2019
Leave to appeal refused because the intended appeal lacked a reasonable prospect of success; the judge did not err in principle in exercising discretion — the express and implied undertakings together provided adequate protection for any asserted PSI and the costs order was appropriate.
22 May 2017
The plaintiff failed to demonstrate that the proposed appeal had a reasonable prospect of success and no other reason in the interests of justice existed to hear the appeal; accordingly leave to appeal was refused and costs were ordered for the defendant.
11 Mar 2013
Leave to appeal was refused because there was no arguable ground to disturb the trial judge's case management discretion: the proposed expert evidence was irrelevant to the issues, the threshold for appellate intervention was not met, and the judge had not erred in principle or acted irrationally.
1 Aug 2003
The Presiding Officer validly exercised his statutory discretion under Sections 29A and 30 of the Labour Tribunal Ordinance to order payment of $1,700,000 into court as a condition of adjournment given a finding of risk of dissipation and other considerations; the exercise of discretion was not shown to be vitiated or unreasonable and there were no arguable grounds of appeal, therefore leave to appeal was dismissed.
1 Aug 2003
The Presiding Officer lawfully exercised his discretion under Sections 29A and 30 to require payment of HK$1,700,000 into court as a condition for adjournment given the cogent findings (including risk of dissipation, delay and prejudice); the Defendants' failure to comply justified entry of an award and there were no arguable grounds for leave to appeal.