30 Apr 2026
The appeal is dismissed because the applicant failed to identify any error in the judge's refusal to grant leave to apply for judicial review and raised no viable, particularised grounds; the Court will not substitute its own assessment for that of the Board absent error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality.
22 Apr 2026
The appeal is dismissed because the applicant failed to identify any error of law or procedural unfairness in the High Court judge’s Leave Decision; the Board’s adverse factual findings on credibility, severity and availability of state protection and internal relocation were open on the evidence and the judge did not err in refusing extension of time or leave.
9 Mar 2026
Because the leave application was lodged out of time without explanation, the applicant failed to identify any reasonably arguable public law grounds, and the Court found no error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board's assessment, the Court refused the extension of time and dismissed the leave application.
27 Feb 2026
Plaintiff failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that he contributed the asserted sums or that any common intention existed to give him beneficial interests in FF Shops or House 71/72; contemporaneous documents and conduct contradicted Plaintiff’s account and his credibility was undermined; accordingly legal title stood and no constructive or resulting trust arose, so all claims based on alleged trusts, breaches and tracing failed.
6 Feb 2026
The trial judge erred in law and fact by treating alleged misrepresentations as the sole means of proving undue influence, disregarding alternative pleaded particulars invoking the evidential rebuttable presumption; the judge failed to consider whether a relationship of influence existed and whether the transfers were not readily explicable, so the matter must be remitted for retrial limited to undue influence.
31 Dec 2025
On the evidence the Plaintiffs failed to prove a common intention constructive trust: pleaded common understanding was defective and unsupported; contemporaneous bank records (passbooks) and credible witness evidence established that Wai made the bulk of mortgage repayments and held the mortgage passbooks; Grandmother's 2007 will and conduct acknowledged Wai's position; consequently a resulting trust arises in Wai's favour as principal contributor and he is sole beneficial owner; mesne profits are payable to Wai in the agreed sum of HKD 278,500.
11 Nov 2025
Leave was refused because the applicant failed to particularise his grounds; an oral hearing was held and the applicant declined to give evidence; the Board's adverse credibility findings and reliance on identified COI were within its fact-finding remit; there were no demonstrated errors of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality; the claim was not reasonably arguable with realistic prospects of success.
6 Oct 2025
On the balance of probabilities the court found the alleged oral True Arrangement and the Representation were not proved; the Loan Documents were intended to create legally binding obligations and are enforceable; Crystal Gold and Eric liable to repay EUR 8,085,000 and EUR 3,350,000 with interest as ordered; the D5 Charge was dated/created in April 2021, was executed with intent to defeat creditors or at least prejudiced Delight Wealthy and is voidable and declared null and void under s.60 CPO; the defendants' counterclaim for reimbursement was dismissed; final injunction granted in terms of…
26 Sept 2025
The Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the judge's refusal to extend time because the applicant's delay of over four months was substantial with no good explanation, and because the intended grounds were unarguable: the Board's adverse credibility findings and assessment that risk was localized and internal relocation viable did not disclose legal error, procedural unfairness or irrationality warranting judicial review; applicant had duty lawyer and interpreter assistance.
3 Sept 2025
The Court refused leave because the questions raised were fact‑sensitive rather than matters of great general or public importance, the judge did not exceed the scope of the ordered Preliminary Issues, was entitled to consider and make findings on related factual matters necessary to resolve the Preliminary Issues, and correctly applied the burden of proof on the issue of backdating; accordingly leave to appeal was denied.