14 Sept 2010
Leave to appeal out of time was refused because the prosecution did not show it was reasonably arguable that there had been a departure from accepted norms so serious as to constitute a substantial and grave injustice under s.32(2); accordingly no extension for a substantive appeal was warranted and costs were awarded to the respondents.
20 Oct 2008
By majority the court refused leave to the Court of Final Appeal because the plaintiff's broad proposition extending legal professional privilege to any person was, in the majority's view, not a suitable interlocutory question of sufficient general or public importance, was fact-sensitive and possibly unarguable, and the plaintiff had not identified privileged or confidential information with sufficient specificity; the court exercised its discretion to refuse leave and noted trial would better determine factual issues.
10 Dec 1992
The court refused to set aside the master's orders: letters rogatory seeking evidence for trial should be honoured absent abuse; blanket claims of privilege/confidentiality fail and must be asserted question-by-question before the examiner with ultimate determination for the trial judge; document orders are permissible if documents are likely to exist and are specified with sufficient particularity, and where necessary the court may narrow the requests to remove vague or overly broad language.