24 Jul 2020
The court refused leave because the applicant failed to raise any reasonably arguable question of great general or public importance warranting CFA consideration, and because two of the central issues (composition and nomination of Appeal Committee judges) fell within the scope of a separate pending appeal (CACV 552/2019) and thus could not be the basis for leave in these proceedings.
24 Jul 2020
Leave to appeal was refused because (a) issues as to the composition and recusal of CFA judges were the subject of a different appeal (CACV 552/2019) and thus could not form the basis for leave in these proceedings, and (b) the remaining procedural complaint under Rule 7 was not reasonably arguable because the applicant failed to rebut the reasons given by the trial judge; consequently the applicant did not raise a reasonably arguable question of sufficient public importance under s22(1)(b) Cap 484.
19 May 2005
The indemnity costs order made on 31 December 2003 was set aside because the proceedings did not exhibit the special or unusual features required to justify indemnity costs; costs of the Recusal Application were ordered to be paid by the defendant to the Joint Administrators on a party-and-party basis; the Joint Administrators' own costs are to be taxed on a trustee basis and paid out of the estate; no personal costs order was made against the Joint Administrators; and no order as to costs was made for the variation application and Recusal Costs Appeal except that the Joint Administrators' ow…