5 Aug 2022
The application was 22 days late, the time limit ran from the date of the order (31 March 2022), and the appellant failed to show good cause to extend the statutory deadline or to demonstrate that the proposed appeal raised issues of general or public importance or identified error in the order removing his appeal; accordingly the extension and leave were refused and the motion struck out.
21 Apr 2022
The appeal was struck out because the appellant lacked statutory permission to appeal under Cap.336 s63, failed to apply for leave within the required time and procedures (Order 58 r2(4)), and failed to show any relevant grounds connected to the impugned district court order that would justify a direct appeal without leave.
20 Apr 2021
The notice of appeal was struck out because it was filed 15 days out of time without first obtaining an extension from the court below and the applicant failed to show special circumstances justifying direct application to the Court of Appeal; furthermore, even if the Court entertained the application, extension would be refused because there was no satisfactory explanation for the delay and the proposed grounds of appeal had no prospect of success, rendering the appeal incompetent.
3 Aug 2018
The appeal was properly struck out for the appellant's failure to comply with the express court order to file and serve a skeleton argument and authorities list by the deadline; the appellant's reliance on earlier documents did not constitute compliance because those documents were not identified or relied upon as the required skeleton before the deadline; the respondent is entitled to costs which were assessed and reduced from the claimed amount to $82,628.40.
1 Dec 2017
On the undisputed evidence the dual‑currency integrated account was a single contractual relationship producing a unified debt owed by the bank such that the Intervener could trace into both USD and HKD balances; the district judge correctly and permissibly determined the matter summarily; the Court of Appeal has jurisdiction to refuse renewed leave and to strike out the appeal as bound to fail where the factual basis cannot support the contended legal conclusion.
24 May 2011
Leave to appeal from the District Court to the Court of Appeal was required under the District Court Ordinance s63; no valid leave had been granted; the appellant failed to show a reasonable prospect of success on the merits given settled authority that a manager of a Tong is in the nature of a trustee with fiduciary duty to account; accordingly leave was refused, the notice of appeal was struck out and the plaintiff awarded costs.
26 Mar 2010
The stay application was refused because the appeal for which the stay was sought (CACV 101/2007) had been dismissed, rendering the present appeal overtaken by events; accordingly no stay was granted and the defendants were awarded the costs of this appeal excluding costs of their 4 March 2010 summons.
24 Feb 1998
The court refused the appellant's application for an extension of time because the delay lacked satisfactory explanation, the appeal had virtually no prospect of success on both findings and sanctions, and the respondent would be prejudiced by further delay; consequently the respondent's application to strike out the appeal for failure to set down was granted and the appeal was struck out with costs to the respondent.