17 Dec 2018
The Court refused leave because the intended appeal lacked any reasonable prospect of success under s14AA High Court Ordinance Cap 4, there was no other reason in the interests of justice to hear it, the alleged new events did not establish grounds for an RPO and the application amounted to an abuse of process and was plainly unarguable.
5 Jun 2013
Plaintiff's applications were dismissed because she lacked standing to pursue reliefs that belonged to the tenant, the pleaded facts did not establish unlawful or tortious conduct by the defendants towards the plaintiff or tenant justifying injunctive relief, no basis existed for RAO/RPO against the defendants, and the counterclaim for damages for malicious institution of proceedings failed because there is no general tort of instituting civil proceedings maliciously; costs were awarded to defendants accordingly.
29 Jan 2010
The Court of Appeal determined Carpenter II, when read with the materials referenced, sufficiently addressed the Court of Appeal's direction by providing expert opinion that the procedure fell below the applicable standard of care and could have caused tinnitus; Deputy Judge Carlson erred in striking out the action for non-compliance and in staying the action for abusive conduct as a first resort. However the judge was entitled to impose RAO and RPO given the plaintiff's pattern of unwarranted applications and offensive filings; procedural directions were given for amendment and for a supplem…
7 Jul 2008
Leave to appeal was dismissed because section 14(3)(d) of the High Court Ordinance and the circumstances (applicant had time and opportunity to appeal the decree nisi and had unsuccessfully appealed) render the present application misconceived and an abuse of process; applicant's grounds were unarguable and previously rejected; the court will consider exercising its inherent jurisdiction to strike out the pending related appeal and to impose RPO/RAO against the applicant.