24 Jun 2020
Leave to appeal was refused because the applicant failed to identify any error of law or procedural unfairness, provided no draft grounds or particulars of appeal, and therefore failed to demonstrate that the appeal had a reasonable prospect of success or any other reason in the interests of justice.
21 Jul 2014
Leave to appeal was refused because the judge's decision to disallow admission of the late 5th Affidavit was a proper exercise of case management discretion: the affidavit should have been contemplated earlier, the application for leave was made too late with no good explanation or exceptional circumstances, and admitting it would disrupt the timetable; accordingly there was no arguable basis that the judge was clearly wrong.
4 Apr 2014
Leave to appeal was refused because the intended grounds lacked a reasonable prospect of success and no other interest of justice justified a hearing; the court had already addressed the jurisdiction and charging order issues in the Decision, transcript/tape were unnecessary for the rehearing appeal mechanism, and costs were awarded to the Director.
11 Jan 2008
The application for leave to appeal was dismissed because the court's decision was interlocutory (a strike-out under Order 18) so s22(1)(a) did not apply, and the applicant failed to show that the allegations of fraud or the issue of branch identity raised matters of great general or public importance under s22(1)(b); accordingly leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal was refused.
27 Feb 2006
Leave to appeal was granted because on an interlocutory application involving interpretation of law the threshold for leave is low and the defendant demonstrated a realistic prospect of success given competing appellate authorities on clause interpretation; accordingly leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal was appropriate.