29 Nov 2023
The application for leave to apply for judicial review was dismissed because the decisions challenged were interlocutory rulings of another CFI Judge not amenable to supervisory judicial review and an adequate alternative remedy by appeal existed; consequently there were no reasonably arguable grounds for review.
21 Apr 2023
The application for leave to appeal out of time was dismissed because the Husband failed to provide adequate reasons for the delay, the intended appeal had no reasonable prospect of success (the draft grounds lacked merit given the interlocutory and short-term nature of the MPS Order), and there were no other reasons in the interests of justice to grant leave; costs ordered against the Husband and directions given to draw up sealed MPS Order.
21 Mar 2023
The Court refused leave to appeal because the applications disclosed no arguable grounds of fact or law, were largely out of time where applicable, consisted of incoherent and irrelevant material that could not form the basis of a proper appeal, and the interlocutory/case‑management orders complained of had been superseded by the final substantive custody judgment; accordingly there was no real prospect of success and leave was refused and costs ordered.
21 Mar 2023
Leave to appeal on all four writs was refused because the applications either were significantly out of time without satisfactory explanation, or entirely lacked coherent, legally arguable grounds, or sought to challenge interlocutory case‑management orders now superseded by a final judgment; accordingly there was no reasonable prospect of success and no basis to grant leave. Costs were awarded to the successful party and directed to be assessed on a short written timetable.
2 Mar 2022
The summons for leave to appeal is dismissed. The application for the May transcripts is dismissed in limine because that application had already been refused and cannot be re‑made. The application for leave to appeal against refusal to provide the October transcripts is refused because defendants failed to show an arguable case or reasonable prospect of success, failed to demonstrate necessity or relevance of transcripts given the written decision, did not satisfy the criteria for provision of transcripts, and did not take up the offered audio recording; costs ordered against defendants.
17 Sept 2020
Given the Court of Final Appeal's ruling that refusals of extensions of time that result in refusal of leave fall within Order 59 rule 21(1)(g) and are appealable as of right, the applicants were within the 14-day appeal period and the court extended time for them to file their notice of appeal; the earlier decision refusing extension was based on lack of good reason, absence of reasonably arguable grounds, and no error of law or procedural unfairness.
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.
4 Sept 2020
Where an interlocutory refusal to admit affidavit evidence was made in the course of the hearing that produced a final judgment, and the respondent has appealed that final judgment as of right, no separate leave to appeal is required in respect of the interlocutory refusal because the appeal opens the whole judgment including evidential rulings.
27 Aug 2020
Given the Court of Final Appeal's authority that refusal of an extension of time which results in refusal of leave is within Order 59 r.21(1)(g) and appealable as of right, and the applicant was within the 14-day appeal period, the court extended time for the applicant to file his notice of appeal within 14 days of the order.
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.