10 Jun 2022
The appeal was struck out because the plaintiff failed to obtain leave to appeal against an interlocutory decision as required by section 14AA of the High Court Ordinance and did not seek the required leave or a timely extension; the recorder correctly refused to grant an extension and the appeal was therefore incompetent.
20 Sept 2019
Leave to appeal was refused because the grounds advanced were the same errors already considered and rejected in CACV 102/2019; there is no pending relevant action in the Shanghai Maritime Court between these parties that would satisfy lis alibi pendens; the misdeclaration and limitation/registration proceedings are irrelevant or protective and not decisive to render the SMC the appropriate forum; accordingly the application had no reasonable prospect of success.
2 Apr 2019
The Extension Order was set aside because objectively there were no good reasons at the time to extend the writ and because the applicant’s affidavits contained material misstatements/non‑disclosure about Harris J’s s221 decision and the limitation position which misled the Master; the continuing duty of disclosure applies to ex parte extension applications; the appeal was dismissed on the merits; although Section 14AA leave was required the Court granted leave in the interest of justice and ordered the Plaintiff to pay the Defendant’s costs on the leave issue.
26 Feb 2019
The Court held that the judge's refusal to grant a stay on forum non conveniens grounds was an interlocutory decision under the application approach and therefore the defendant required leave under Section 14AA to appeal; absent leave the appeal must be struck out and dismissed.
29 Oct 2018
The Court held the intended judicial review had no reasonable prospect of success on the known records of detriment ground, the Director had not misapplied the policy, and there were no other reasons in the interests of justice to grant leave under Section 14AA; accordingly leave was refused and the appeal struck out as incompetent and dismissed with costs.
9 Feb 2012
Leave to appeal was refused because the plaintiff failed to show a reasonable prospect of success: no prima facie case was made that the defendant had further documents in its possession, custody or control or that further discovery was necessary; the trial judge's discretionary exercise on discovery, particulars and costs was not shown to be erroneous in law or plainly wrong; granting leave would cause unjustified delay and increased costs contrary to the Civil Justice Reform.