25 Oct 2021
The application for leave to appeal was dismissed because the applicant merely repeated prior affidavits without demonstrating a reasonable prospect of success; material factual disputes (notably whether the defendant received HK$300,000 and issues of credibility) could not be resolved on affidavit and require a full trial, so the statutory threshold under s63A(2) was not met.
18 Jul 2001
The master was correct to grant unconditional leave because the defendant raised a bona fide factual defence that the payments were not loans but part of a commercial transaction; the dispute was not so untenable as to justify summary judgment and therefore the matter must proceed to trial.
5 Aug 1999
Because the defendant raised a credible dispute about the genuineness of the cheque and the cheque was procured in circumstances warranting investigation (blank and undated and completed by a third party), the issue could not be resolved summarily and the application for summary judgment was dismissed.