23 Feb 2023
The Notice of Motion was dismissed because the applicant was nearly one month late without any explanation, failed to demonstrate any arguable merit or any question of great general or public importance under section 22(1)(b) HKCFAO, and therefore there was no basis to extend time or to grant leave to appeal.
18 Aug 2022
Leave to appeal was refused because the applicant failed to identify any question of great general or public importance under s 22(1)(b) Cap 484, filed no submissions as directed, and the intended appeal had no merits and no reasonable prospect of success, with no basis under the 'otherwise' limb.
29 Apr 2021
Leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal was refused because the applicant did not identify any error in the Court of Appeal's judgment nor raise any question of great general or public importance; the application was therefore wholly without merit and did not meet the statutory test under s22(1)(b) Cap 484.
17 Sept 2020
Leave to appeal was refused because the applicant's proposed legal points did not add to the established elements of misconduct in public office; the evidence (admitted/proved) permitted an irresistible inference of misuse of office by procuring services for ineligible relatives over many years; the misconduct was serious rather than trivial; and there was no substantial and grave injustice justifying leave.
27 Jun 2019
The application for leave to appeal was dismissed because the applicant failed to identify any question of great general or public importance under section 22(1)(b) Cap 484, the grounds were vague and not reasonably arguable, and no basis existed under the 'otherwise' limb for granting leave.
7 Nov 2017
The Court granted leave to appeal but limited the grant to identified legal questions: scope of appellate alteration of factual bases on s.81A review, the role of motive (including civil disobedience) in sentencing, allowance for guidance to future courts, and the relevance of s.109A for Wong Chi Fung. The order is procedural — permission to litigate those issues before the Court of Final Appeal, not a determination on the merits.
16 Dec 2015
The summons was procedurally defective and out of time (wrong form, failure to give notice within 28 days), the applicant failed to comply with court directions to file proper grounds and submissions, and the proposed ground of double jeopardy was misconceived because licence cancellation was regulatory rather than punitive; accordingly leave and any extension of time were refused and the summons dismissed with costs.
30 Jan 2014
The Court dismissed the application for leave to appeal on costs but reserved the question of costs to the Court of Final Appeal because the CFA might grant leave or the outcome of the substantive appeal could materially affect the appropriate order on costs, justifying reservation rather than making a final costs order.