9 Apr 2026
Leave to appeal was refused because the applicant did not identify any question of great general or public importance under s22(1)(b) Cap 484, failed to plead particularised or reasonably arguable errors, and offered no basis under the "otherwise" limb; therefore the Notice of Motion is dismissed.
24 Mar 2026
The leave application was dismissed because the applicant failed to specify the relief and public law grounds on Form 86 as required by Order 53 r3, failed to make full and frank disclosure in an ex parte application, and there was an effective statutory alternative remedy under the Small Claims Tribunal regime, rendering judicial review inappropriate.
25 May 2022
The application for leave to appeal out of time was dismissed because the applicant failed to provide a reasonable explanation for the delay and failed to identify any question of great general or public importance as required by s22(1)(b) Cap 484; the grounds advanced were not reasonably arguable and lacked particulars, and the request for duty lawyer assistance was immaterial to the leave decision.
11 Jan 2022
Application dismissed because the applicant failed to provide a reasonable explanation for the delay and failed to identify any question of great general or public importance or any matter reasonably arguable before the Court of Final Appeal; illiteracy and lack of representation did not suffice.
24 Dec 2021
The court refused to extend the statutory time for filing the Notice of Motion because the applicant was late by almost one month, his explanation for delay was uncorroborated and unsatisfactory, he failed to comply with Registrar's directions, and the intended appeal lacked merit and did not raise any question of great general or public importance under s22(1)(b) of the HKCFAO; accordingly the Notice of Motion was dismissed.
31 Jul 2019
The Notice of Motion for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal was dismissed because the applicant failed to raise a question of great general or public importance as required by s22(1)(b) CFAO, raised new points not previously argued which appellate courts do not ordinarily entertain, presented an unarguable assertion that his life would be in danger, and failed to particularize any bias; furthermore the earlier refusal of leave out of time is final under s14AB HCO.
29 Nov 2018
The application for leave was dismissed because the applicant raised only case‑specific issues and failed to demonstrate a question of great general or public importance as required by section 22(1)(b) Cap 484, and failed to put forward effective arguments to reverse the judge's decision.
4 Mar 2016
The magistrate acted within his discretion in refusing to issue the private summonses because the appellant's allegations lacked substance and disclosed no criminal offence warranting summonses; ss 21-22 Magistrates Ordinance do not permit compulsory disclosure absent instituted proceedings; the appeal is unmeritorious and is dismissed.
1 Jun 2015
The magistrate correctly applied the test from Tsui Koon Wah and section 8 of the Magistrates Ordinance, concluded the two‑page information did not disclose any criminal offence or even a prima facie case against the proposed defendants, and lawfully determined the applications in chambers; refusals to issue summonses, to admit the unauthenticated audio recording, to grant adjournment and to initiate contempt proceedings were proper and the appeals are dismissed.
16 Aug 2010
There were no good reasons to disturb the master's discretionary decision to retain the matter; prior appeals had been dismissed, the master's assessment of hearing length was reasonable and any fact-sensitive issues can be addressed at the striking-out hearing, therefore the appeal is dismissed and costs awarded to the plaintiff.