17 Oct 2024
The judge dismissed the appellant's Order 58 appeal because the challenged interlocutory applications were abusive repetitions of previously dismissed applications; there was no evidential basis to disturb the Masters' decisions or the costs orders, and the appellant's complaints about hearing length and human rights were unsupported.
21 Jun 2024
The applications and appeals were dismissed because the applicant failed to show a real or substantial prospect of success on appeal or other compelling grounds to justify staying enforcement; the applicant’s arguments were repetitive and constituted an abuse of process; enforcement had been completed and the Master’s costs orders were appropriate and not plainly wrong, therefore the court refused to suspend execution and refused to set aside costs orders.
4 Jun 2021
The second defendant lacked standing to pursue the appeal because the bankruptcy order had vested her litigation rights in the Official Receiver under the Bankruptcy Ordinance and the Official Receiver refused to allow continuation; additionally the application was brought to the wrong forum in breach of District Court Rules Order 58 r1; therefore the Court struck out the second defendant's 19 November 2020 summons/application.
16 Aug 2019
The court refused the stay and payment-direction applications because the applicant had not complied with the specific conditions set by the prior interim order and provided no satisfactory evidence of changed financial circumstances; appeals do not stay execution; consolidation was refused because the two proceedings involve distinct legal and factual issues and different primary witnesses; the court granted the language request; costs were awarded to the respondent for the two applications.