21 May 2008
Application refused because the claim remained unliquidated (an asserted agreement on quantum did not convert it and was disputed) and, under s22(1)(b), even a likely monetary threshold exceedance does not suffice absent a question of great general or public importance, which is absent here.
19 Jan 2007
Leave to appeal was refused because the respondent did not satisfy s22(1): the dispute involved only HK$17,500 and the core issue (award of entertainment expenses rejected by the AGM) was fact‑specific and not of general or public importance; accordingly leave was dismissed and costs awarded to the applicant.
17 Nov 2005
Leave to appeal was refused because the order was interlocutory and there was no right of appeal under section 22(1) of the Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, no issue of great general or public importance was raised, and no other exceptional ground was shown; consequently the application for leave and the application for a stay were dismissed with costs to the plaintiff.
25 Oct 2005
The application for leave to appeal was dismissed because the applicant's claim did not satisfy the monetary threshold in s22(1)(a) and did not raise a question of great general or public importance under s22(1)(b); the dispute was fact‑specific, involving mixed client shares that could not be separately identified, and there was no basis to exercise the court's discretion to grant leave.
23 Feb 2005
Leave to appeal was refused because the appellant was not entitled to appeal as of right (the dispute was not a liquidated claim of HK$1,000,000) and the matters (strike out and refusal to amend) did not involve questions of great, general or public importance nor any other basis to justify leave; application dismissed with costs to the plaintiff.