We consider it appropriate to do so on the basis of the written materials before us pursuant to Order 59 rule 14A.ģ. ![]() Be that as it may, now that the plaintiff has made an application to the Court of Appeal by summons dated 18 November 2021 and written submissions have been lodged by the parties pursuant to the directions of the Registrar of Civil Appeals, we shall determine the application. It was apparently not drawn to the attention of the judge that since an amendment of Order 59 rule 15 in 2017, such an application may be made to him whether before or after the expiration of the time limit. At the hearing of the summons on 29 June 2021, since leave was not in fact required because of the provisions of Order 59 rule 21(2)(b) of the Rules of the High Court (Cap 4A), Coleman J made no order on the plaintiff’s summons, but pointed out in his decision that the plaintiff could make an application for an extension of the prescribed time, which had by then expired, for serving a notice of appeal.Ģ. The plaintiff, believing he needed leave to appeal, applied for leave by summons dated 24 March 2021. After a hearing, Coleman J dismissed the appeal in his judgment handed down on 10 March 2021 (“Judgment”). The plaintiff appealed to a judge in chambers. The plaintiff’s amended statement of claim indorsed on the amended writ of summons was struck out by Master Man on the grounds that it disclosed no reasonable cause of action, was frivolous or vexatious, or was otherwise an abuse of the process of the court. Hon G Lam JA (giving the Judgment of the Court):ġ. ![]() (ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCA NO 1915 OF 2019)ĭate of Written Submissions: 21 February, 11 April and
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |