- 17 A A B B a “publisher” of the Words. C C VI. GROUND 3 D D 31. E F G H I I am not persuaded there is merit to Ground 3 for Google Inc has applied under the Summons on the basis that they do not take issue that the Words are defamatory of Yeung. VII. SOME OTHER REASON IN THE INTERESTS OF JUSTICE 32. I have touched on this matter in the above discussions. But before I say anything more, I shall briefly deal with one short matter. E F G H I Mr McCoy SC has urged this court to avoid a mechanistic approach, and J K not to assume that after the CJR first instance courts have to adopt an austere approach in exercising their gatekeeper function on leave to J K appeal. L M L 33. I am quite unconvinced that after the implementation of the M CJR judges have been parsimonious in granting leave to appeal. The N O busy diary of the Court of Appeal proves otherwise. I pause here to emphasise the exercise of the jurisdiction to give or to refuse leave to N O appeal by the court below, which serves a filtering purpose, should not be P Q overly generous; otherwise unmeritorious challenges would add to costs to be incurred by the opposing parties and would waste court resources. P Q Lam VP in Singh Arhun by his next friend Singh Anita Guruprit v The R Secretary of Justice on behalf of The Commissioner of Police & anor21 S T R S 21 HCMP590/2014 (unreported, 21 March 2014) T U U V V