11 Nov 2025
Because the applicant voluntarily withdrew the application, there was no outstanding matter in the action, and no evidence of coercion, the court was entitled to set aside the earlier grant of leave and dismiss the application rather than leave the action at large.
6 Nov 2019
The court found the applicant's ex-parte affidavit contained material misrepresentations and omissions regarding whether the PRC courts had dealt with the Hong Kong properties; those misrepresentations and non-disclosures had materially misled the court in granting ex‑parte leave, therefore the ex‑parte leave was set aside and the originating summons dismissed, with costs to the respondent.
31 May 2017
The court allowed the 2nd defendant's application to set aside leave for service out of jurisdiction and dismissed the plaintiff's application for leave to further amend as against the 2nd defendant; in assessing costs the court found the total claimed for the setting aside application not disproportionate, allowed photocopying at $1 per page, reduced the senior associate hourly rate from $4,000 to $3,000 leading to a deduction of $30,799.99 for the setting aside application, reduced time allowances for affidavit preparation on the amendment application and allowed $25,150 for that applicatio…
18 May 2012
Leave to apply for judicial review was set aside because the applicant lacked sufficient interest: evidence demonstrated comparable alternative shooting facilities exist so the applicant suffered no loss from termination of HKRA's tenancy, rendering the claim without a realistic prospect of success; accordingly the amendment/joinder application failed and leave was revoked.
7 Sept 2010
The applications were dismissed because the applicant failed to meet the high threshold required to rescind a single judge's grant of leave to appeal; the appeal was arguable and therefore the stay of the custody order pending appeal should be maintained in the interests of the children.
27 Jun 2003
Leave to apply for judicial review should not have been set aside because the applicant raised arguable grounds about the validity of the meetings and appointment process (notably the 12 August 2001 meeting and adequacy of notice) such that the managers and District Officer failed to show the challenge was doomed to fail; accordingly the order of the judge below setting aside leave and dismissing the motion was set aside and the appeal allowed; the District Officer's application to convert the matter into a private action was refused.