29 Jan 2005
Leave to appeal was refused because the late letters would not have affected the outcome, the Plaintiff had no realistic prospect of success, and the Master's referral to a judge is not appealable under Order 32, rule 17(2), hence no right to appeal from the outset.
29 Jan 2005
The application for leave to appeal was refused because the plaintiff has no realistic prospect of success, the late letters would not have altered the decision as they merely reiterated submissions already made, and Master Ko lawfully has discretion to refer the defendants' summons to a judge with no right of appeal under Order 32, rule 17(2).
29 Jan 2005
The application for leave to appeal was refused because the plaintiff had no realistic prospect of success: the late letters simply reiterated submissions already before the court and would not have altered the decision, and Master Ko validly exercised his discretion to refer the defendants' summons to a judge, such referral being non-appealable under Order 32, r.17(2).