In this case, because of the timeframe involved, this action was brought to the court very expediently. If Hicks and Gillett appeal, and lose, but cause the sale to Henry to end or the RBS to call in the administrators, the potential sanctions for losing the appeal would be huge.
So unless they had new evidence, probably previously kept from them, which would support the appeal being successful, added to the judge already refusing leave to appeal, they are taking a massive gamble.
There is no suggestion here that the judge misinterpreted the facts of the case – he came to a very logical conclusion open to him on the facts. It is only where he came to a decision that was not supported by the evidence that a superior court would overturn it. (Excluding road traffic and crime).
In Ireland at least, appellant courts do not overturn decisions of lower courts simply because they may have come to a different conclusion. They only overturn if they feel the decision is one the trial judge could not reasonably come to on the facts.