10 Apr 2026
Appeal dismissed because the applicant failed to identify any error in the Deputy High Court Judge's refusal of leave and advanced only general, unsupported allegations which do not amount to viable grounds of appeal; the Court will not reassess the merits.
4 Mar 2026
The appeal was dismissed because the applicant failed to identify any specific error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Leave Decision; his assertions were general, unsupported and insufficient to displace the Board's primary fact and risk assessments, so there was no basis to grant extension of time or interfere with the Leave Decision.
2 Feb 2026
The Court of Appeal affirmed the Recorder: TP Wong authored the SF 2003 plans and the as-built installation in the course of employment so Plaintiff owns copyright; the installation qualifies as a 'work of architecture' under s 5 without a requirement of artistic quality; the SF 2005 plans (and consequentially the MS plans and Defendant's installation) reproduced substantial and qualitatively important parts of the SF 2003 plans/installation; the s 115 presumption of Gammon/Lambeth authorship was rebutted by evidence; therefore Defendant infringed Plaintiff's copyright.
12 Jul 2024
The appellant's provision of his full name, telephone and residential address to enable the consignor/carrier to import, his direct collection and signature on nine consignment notes, and the trial judge's adverse credibility findings were open on the evidence; those acts constituted causing the goods to be brought into Hong Kong under s.18(1)(a) Cap.60 and the statutory defence failed because the manifests clearly described 'copper crafts' and the appellant had opportunity to observe that; on full rehearing the prosecution proved guilt beyond reasonable doubt and the conviction is upheld.
7 Nov 2022
The appeal is allowed and the conviction quashed because the trial judge's manner and extent of questioning crossed the permissible bounds and created a perception that he had joined the adversarial role, thereby rendering the trial unfair and the conviction unsafe; this procedural unfairness alone justified overturning the conviction notwithstanding the underlying evidential issues about safety systems.
10 Jan 2020
The trial judge's factual findings that the appellant completely crossed continuous double white lines in a large bus at about 40–50 km/h and struck a stationary/slow-moving oncoming vehicle after some 3–4 seconds were rational and supported by evidence; in those circumstances the driving was far below the standard of a competent and careful driver and objectively dangerous under s.37 RTO. There was no error of law or irrationality warranting appellate interference, so the conviction for dangerous driving must be affirmed.
7 Feb 2014
The applications for leave to appeal were dismissed because applicants failed to show it was reasonably arguable that the trial judge was plainly wrong in accepting the credibility of the key prosecution witness; the bank records and new evidence did not demonstrably undermine her account and there was substantial corroboration and contemporaneous account to support the convictions, so there was no real danger of substantial and grave injustice warranting leave.
10 Dec 1973
The appellate court held the trial judge was entitled to accept the identification evidence as sufficient to establish identity; although the alleged admission in Chinese raised concern about possible mistranslation, the admission could not be shown to have had appreciable weight and did not create a 'lurking doubt' warranting reversal, so the application for leave to appeal was dismissed.