9 Apr 2026
The appeal was dismissed because the applicant failed to identify any error of law or procedural unfairness in the Judge's refusal of leave; the Board's adverse factual findings were open on the evidence and the applicant's claims were bare assertions unsupported by particulars or evidence, falling below the threshold for leave.
2 Apr 2026
The High Court refused leave because the trial judge had adequately considered and analysed the key credibility issues and provided sufficient reasons for accepting PW1's evidence; the applicant's grounds merely re‑hashed points already considered and did not demonstrate any manifest error or incompatibility with the overall evidence warranting appellate intervention.
13 Feb 2026
The court concluded that the applicant's first ground failed (no credible claim of non-notice absense) but the amended second ground raised an arguable point of law because the Tribunal gave no adequate explanation for rejecting the probative value of the temporal correlation (shutting/repairing upstairs water and cessation of leak); that omission rendered the Tribunal's conclusion arguable as illogical or lacking adequate reasoning, and therefore leave to appeal was granted on that amended ground.
30 Sept 2025
The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the trial judge's fact‑finding was vitiated by an improper approach to evidence and credibility and by ignoring material and undisputed background facts and contemporaneous documents; on the proper assessment the Kwai Fu Property was held by the defendant on common intention constructive trust for the benefit of the deceased Father's estate, and judgment was entered for the plaintiff with costs.
5 Sept 2025
The Court held that the trial judge was entitled to admit and rely on D2's cautioned statements and to make the factual inferences supporting convictions for D2, D4, D6 and D7 on the totality of direct and circumstantial evidence; however, the late post-evidence addition of a riot charge against D3 created unfairness not cured by available remedies and the conviction and sentence on that added charge must be quashed.
2 Sept 2025
The Court refused leave because the trial judge's factual findings on credibility and causation were within the range of permissible conclusions on the evidence and not plainly wrong; the defendant failed to show a reasonable prospect of success on the proposed grounds of appeal and no other reason in the interests of justice was established.
21 Aug 2025
The renewed application for leave to appeal is refused because the plaintiffs failed to show a reasonable prospect of success: the trial judge's findings that the defendant did not owe an affirmative maintenance duty, that foreseeability of the specific water seepage was not established, and that the defendant acted reasonably to abate the seepage were open to him and adequately supported by the evidence, so no arguable error of law or fact justified granting leave.
13 Aug 2025
The appeal is dismissed because the applicant failed to identify any reasonably arguable ground of judicial review or to point to legal error in the Judge's refusal of leave; the Court will not overturn the Judge's decision absent demonstrated error in law, failure to consider relevant matters, or that the decision was plainly wrong.
12 Feb 2025
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed because the Plaintiffs failed to show any palpable error in the trial judge's primary factual findings or legal analysis; the judge reasonably concluded the Defendant did not ‘permit’ the leakage, the drainage system (drain holes and drainpipes) are common facilities for which the estate manager is responsible, the proposed precautionary measures were unproven or disproportionate, and therefore none of the proposed grounds has a reasonable prospect of success under s63A DCO.
17 Dec 2024
The defendant failed to discharge the burden to prove that the beneficial ownership of the property belonged to the mother or that a common intention constructive trust existed; the trial judge's adverse credibility findings were supported by the evidence and were not plainly wrong, therefore the High Court's order for delivery of vacant possession and the finding that the plaintiff held beneficial interest were affirmed.