- 2 A B A heard before me on 8 May and 7 November 2013 (“Decision”). For the B sake of convenience, I shall adopt the abbreviations in the Decision. C D C 2. By the Summons, Google Inc sought inter alia the following D reliefs: E E (a) a declaration that the court has no jurisdiction over Google Inc in respect of the subject matter of the claim and/or the F F reliefs/remedies sought against them in the present action, or G G alternatively a declaration that the court should not exercise any jurisdiction it may have; H (b) I an order that (i) the CWoS and Leave Order be set aside or H I discharged, (ii) service of the CWoS on Google Inc be set J aside, and (iii) all subsequent proceedings in the present action be stayed. K L M 3. By the Decision, I dismissed the Summons and granted a costs order nisi in favour of Yeung against Google Inc (with all costs J K L M reserved if any) to be taxed if not agreed (“Order”). There was no N O P Q application by either party to vary the above costs order nisi, so it has been made absolute. 4. On 12 September 2014, the plaintiff filed a summons for leave to appeal against the Order (“Leave Summons”) with a draft Notice N O P Q of Appeal (“Draft Notice”) annexed thereto. The hearing of the Leave R Summons came before me on 23 October 2014 (“Leave Hearing”). R S S T T U U V V