18 Nov 2020
建巧投資有限公司 對 韓國正
- Citation
- [2020] HKCA 929
- Court
- Court of Appeal
- Case number
- CACV231/2010
The leave application was refused because the proposed grounds were case-specific and did not raise matters of general or public importance under Cap 484 s22(1)(b); the ownership and standing arguments were new factual matters barred on appeal under the Flywin principle; and the recusal allegation lacked factual foundation and failed the objective apparent bias test in Deacons, such that there was no basis to grant leave. The application was also abusive, justifying indemnity costs.