11 Jun 2019
The application for leave to appeal was dismissed because the Court found no error of law in the Tribunal's factual findings or inferences: the Presiding Officer's conclusion that there was no dishonesty or misconduct was reasonable and compelling on the evidence, Grounds 1–4 were unarguable, and there was no failure to investigate.
17 Sept 2013
The Court of Appeal refused the application to admit the Pauline Ching File on appeal because Top Selection failed the first Ladd v Marshall requirement (it could have obtained the material with reasonable diligence); it upheld the trial judge's detailed factual findings rejecting the Takeover Arrangement and concluded the judge did not err in law or in applying the standard of proof for fraud — accordingly Hu and Top Selection's appeals were dismissed; however Ma's knowing‑receipt finding was unsupported by the pleadings and evidence (no proper pleaded basis for knowledge or beneficial recei…
18 Jan 2008
The appeal was allowed and conviction and sentence quashed because the magistrate did not direct sufficient attention to the appellant's mental state at the time of the offence, improperly substituted his own psychiatric analysis for the expert's evidence, and therefore the inference that the appellant possessed the necessary mens rea was not shown to be the only reasonable inference from the evidence.
24 Oct 2002
The magistrate's assessment of credibility and her inferences connecting the observed transaction to the pellet found on the co-defendant were reasonable and supported by proximity in time and circumstance; inconsistencies over the timing of the search and secrecy about the observation post did not undermine the core identification evidence. Accordingly the conviction was not against the weight of the evidence and the appeal is dismissed.