20 Feb 2019
Leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal was refused because the proposed grounds did not raise any question of great general or public importance, were unarguable, and the Judge and Court of Appeal properly exercised their discretion to determine the applications on paper in the absence of a request for a hearing; the statutory requirements of s22(1)(b) were therefore not met.
5 Dec 2014
Leave to appeal was refused because the Defendant failed to identify any arguable point of great general or public importance under s22, the submissions improperly re-argued the merits rather than addressing statutory criteria, and the questions raised (including the assignment/equities point) were not arguable.
12 Mar 2013
Leave to appeal was refused because the appeals did not meet the statutory monetary threshold under s22(1)(a), the appellant did not rely on or identify questions of great general or public importance under s22(1)(b), and there were no reasonably arguable grounds of appeal such as would persuade the court to exercise its discretion to grant leave.
12 Mar 2013
Leave to appeal was refused because the case did not meet the s22(1)(a) monetary threshold, the appellant did not establish questions of great general or public importance under s22(1)(b) nor rely on that limb, the appellant had misidentified the subject matters of the appeal, and there were no reasonably arguable grounds warranting the exercise of the court's discretion to grant leave.
27 Oct 2011
Leave to appeal was refused because the sum claimed was unliquidated and therefore did not meet the first limb of s22(1)(a), and the alternative ground under s22(1)(b) was not satisfied as there was no issue of general public importance, no exceptional circumstances, and the appeal lacked sufficient apparent merit to justify leave.
8 Oct 2008
Leave to appeal was refused because this was not a test case under s22(1)(a) (no binding order/agreement and the amount in issue for the 15th Claimant did not exceed HK$1,000,000), the matter was not of great general or public importance under s22(1)(b) being a straightforward statutory interpretation of the amended Ordinance, and there were no grounds to exercise the residual discretion.