19 Jun 2024
The CA stay application was dismissed because the stay summons made in HCSD 56/2021 had been withdrawn and a fresh stay application was properly made and determined in HCB 293/2023; the Court of Appeal had no power to renew or grant a stay of those separate bankruptcy proceedings in an appeal from HCSD 56/2021 and RHC O.59 r.13 was inapplicable.
7 Jul 2003
The appeal was allowed because a limited final extension of the stay to 21 July 2003 was justified: active restructuring negotiations involving domestic and foreign creditors were continuing, the extension would be limited and conditional and would cause no significant prejudice to the Plaintiff, and the judge below erred in treating the earlier stay as a single final opportunity that had been 'squandered'. The stay was therefore extended on the same conditions as the prior orders with liberty to apply.
17 Jul 2002
The court is bound by the Court of Appeal in Bank Negara Indonesia v. Interasian Traders Finance Ltd and holds it lacks jurisdiction to grant a stay of winding-up proceedings pending appeal on an application by the Company; accepting the two additional applicants as creditors with locus under s.209, the court exercised its discretion and found no special circumstances (the investor proposal was preliminary, Official Receiver not engaged, no urgent steps taken) to depart from the established practice of refusing stays in winding-up appeals, and therefore dismissed the application.
3 Jun 2002
The court is bound by the Court of Appeal in Bank Negara Indonesia that it has no jurisdiction to grant a stay of winding-up proceedings on the company's application; the two added applicants as alleged creditors have locus to apply under s.209 but the evidence failed to establish special circumstances to depart from the established practice of not granting stays pending appeal (the restructuring proposal was preliminary, major creditors and the Official Receiver were not properly engaged), therefore the stay application must be dismissed.
5 Aug 1999
The application for a stay of execution was refused because the Court of Appeal likely lacks jurisdiction to grant a stay prior to leave to appeal being considered, and in any event the defendant had no real prospect of obtaining leave to appeal and produced wholly inadequate evidence of inability to pay such that depriving the plaintiff of its judgment was unjustified.
15 Oct 1996
Although the court possessed jurisdiction to grant interlocutory relief under section 21L(1) of the Supreme Court Ordinance, the application for an interim injunction preventing removal was refused because: (a) the applicants challenged decisions made many years earlier and had delayed bringing proceedings; (b) granting relief would encourage filings to frustrate removal and impede orderly repatriation; (c) the Director has a responsible policy not to remove migrants once leave is granted, protecting arguable cases; and (d) immediate logistical prejudice to the repatriation programme outweigh…
24 Aug 1983
The court held Attlee Investments Limited had no jurisdiction to obtain a stay preventing execution because execution by fieri facias is not a "pending action or proceeding" within s181 and Order 47 r1 confines application rights to parties liable to execution; alternatively, even if jurisdiction existed the court would refuse to exercise its discretion because of material non-disclosure on the ex parte application, the lateness of the application, doubts as to bona fides and unacceptable prejudice to the plaintiff.
31 Jul 1980
The appeal was allowed and the stay set aside because section 209 confines the right to seek a stay to named persons and, even if the court had jurisdiction to grant a stay, established practice and the supervisory nature of winding-up jurisdiction require refusal of stays pending appeal to prevent prejudice to liquidators and creditors; English authorities support refusing such stays except in exceptional circumstances.