24 Mar 2026
The applicant failed to identify any error of law, procedural unfairness or Wednesbury unreasonableness in the Judge's refusal of leave; the Board's factual findings that there was no intention or capability by the alleged persecutor to harm or track the applicant were open on the evidence and the appeal was therefore dismissed.
27 Feb 2026
The appeal is dismissed because the appellant failed to identify any error in the Judge's refusal of leave; the grounds advanced lacked particulars and substance, and under the established approach (Nupur Mst) the Court will not disturb the refusal absent viable, specific grounds.
19 Jan 2026
The appeal fails because the applicant did not identify any specific error in the Judge's Leave Decision or advance viable, particularized grounds; general assertions of fear are insufficient and there is no basis to interfere with the leave refusal.
12 Jan 2026
The Court held the Inquiry Panel's factual findings on both charges were open on the evidence and not plainly wrong; the Panel was entitled to find the Appellant fell below expected professional standards by failing to investigate suspected intra-abdominal infection in November 2015 and by failing to treat the CT findings in July 2016 with appropriate urgency; the sanctions imposed were within the Panel's discretion and not manifestly excessive, so the appeal was dismissed.
16 May 2025
重審全部證供後，上訴庭認為控方已在毫無合理疑點下證明三次電話所指事件實際並未發生；裁判官並非主要依賴傳聞，而是依據消防員到場後的直接調查（主控台無警號、現場無火光或煙霧、升降機運作正常及未見有人於高處）得出虛報結論；考慮到上訴人為消防員且在短時間內三度虛報、造成大量人力物力浪費，原審以六周為量刑起點再扣減一月後判處各項控罪五周監禁並同期執行，並無原則性錯誤或明顯過重，故維持定罪及刑罰。
12 May 2025
The trial judge's credibility findings and factual conclusions — that the $5,000,000 was provided to reduce SZ Indigo receivables, not as a loan to the defendant, and that key contested documents lacked authenticity — were open on the evidence and not plainly wrong; interpreting the 5/1/2017 Receipt in the factual context supported the judge's conclusions, so the appeal must be dismissed.
26 Mar 2025
The appeal was dismissed because the Labour Tribunal order created a valid joint and several judgment debt that the appellant did not appeal and did not pay; the appellant failed to file any sworn affidavit or proper pleaded counterclaim demonstrating mutuality or a bona fide set-off; the matters raised related to the company not the appellant personally; and the trial judge did not misapply the law or exercise his discretion improperly.
27 Jan 2025
The appeal was dismissed because the applicant failed to particularise grounds to show arguable error by the Board; absent sufficient particulars, the Judge correctly refused leave and there was no legal error or plainly wrong decision to justify appellate intervention.
23 Jan 2025
On retrial of the evidence the court was not satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the appellants were participating in a 'race' or equivalent speed competition; the pattern of largely sequential driving, use of indicators and hazard lights, lack of overtaking or agreement and substantial gaps rendered the racing convictions unsafe, so convictions for counts 1–4 were quashed; however appellants had admitted the alternative charges of dangerous driving and convictions for those offences were entered.
30 Jun 2023
The Master did not err: given the circumstances (the defendant’s delay in bringing the striking-out application, the defendant’s prior representations in the draft bill and consent security order indicating it would seek particulars, and the availability of amendment to cure defects) it was reasonable to order the 1st Defendant to pay the costs of the withdrawn striking-out summons; the appeal was dismissed and the Master’s costs discretion was properly exercised.