JUDGMENT
123305/2023_ 07052026 / bs
2
prospect that a court of appeal would reverse or materially
alter my order, counsel for the applicant retrod the ground
covered in the argument a quo. Cou nsel did no more than
reassert the arguments I heard and determined in the main
application.
I am satisfied that the conclusion that I reached a quo
was the correct conclusion and that there is no reasonable
prospect of another court adopting a different interpretation
of the relevant contractual cause. I have certainly been
given no reason to think in this application for leave to
10
appeal that any particular step of the argument set out in
my judgment should be revisited.
For all those reasons, and because no other aspect of
my judgment was seriously challenged in the application for
leave to appeal, the application for leave to appeal must be
refused.
On the question of costs, in the main application, I
ordered each party to pay their own costs for reasons that I
again set out fully at paragraph 32 of my judgment.
N otw ithstanding the subm issions of counsel for the first
20
respondent, I a m not convinced that I should depart from
the order I made on the main application in the application
for leave to appeal. It seems to me that unless an
application for leave to appeal exhibits a manifest abuse of
process, a court should be careful not to create the