27 Sept 2021
The Notice of Motion for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal was dismissed because the applicant failed to identify any question of great general or public importance under s.22(1)(b) of the Court of Final Appeal Ordinance and there was no basis for the alternative limb; the intended appeal had no merit.
1 Aug 2016
Leave to appeal was refused because the court applied established legal principles to the facts and concluded that s.22(1)(b) was not satisfied: the issue did not raise a question of great general or public importance and no alternative ground for granting leave existed.
2 Sept 2009
The court refused leave to appeal: the interest on the judgment was not a liquidated amount so s.22(1)(a) did not apply, and the alternative application under s.22(1)(b) failed because the asserted unfairness/double accounting in paragraph 10 lacked merit and had been addressed by the trial judge; accordingly leave to appeal was not warranted.
12 Jan 2005
Leave to appeal was granted because the applicant's construction was reasonably arguable and the statutory construction issue satisfied s.22(1)(b) as a matter of great general or public importance; the attempted contempt issue was allowed to proceed under the same limb; leave was made conditional on the applicant providing security of $400,000 under s.25 and the costs of the leave application were ordered to be costs in the appeal.
7 Oct 1998
The application for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal is refused because none of the issues raised amounted to questions of great general or public importance under s.22(1)(b) and the application failed on its merits; a preliminary jurisdictional point as to whether a right of appeal exists against refusal of leave was raised but not decided.