12 Mar 2021
The appeal was dismissed because the judge’s finding that the debtor’s allegation of sham was incredible and contradicted by contemporaneous documents and the parties’ conduct was not shown to be legally or factually erroneous; absent palpable error the court will not disturb the primary judge’s evaluation and therefore the bankruptcy order stands.
7 Jul 2020
Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to identify any arguable legal error or unfairness in the Board's decision, the Board and Director had properly evaluated the evidence and found state protection and internal relocation available, and the applicant therefore had no reasonable prospect of success.
30 Jun 2020
The applicant failed to demonstrate any arguable or reasonable prospect of success on judicial review because the Board's fact‑finding and evaluation of evidence were not shown to be unlawful, irrational or procedurally unfair, and the Board lawfully concluded there were no substantial grounds for believing a real and substantial risk existed given availability of state protection and internal relocation; accordingly leave to apply for judicial review was refused.
9 Jun 2020
Leave was refused because the applicant failed to show any realistic prospect of success: the Board's adverse credibility findings and conclusion that key evidence was fabricated were supported by the record, the applicant did not discharge the burden to establish lack of state protection or real risk, and no error of law was made by the Board or Director.
27 Sept 2018
Leave to apply for judicial review was properly refused because the Board conducted a fair oral hearing, the applicant's core allegations were speculative and lacked objective corroboration, COI assessment did not reveal procedural unfairness, extended state acquiescence was inapplicable absent evidence of state involvement, the Barangay Captain Document was legitimately doubted for lack of authentication, and thus the intended judicial review was not reasonably arguable and had no prospect of success.
20 Dec 2007
The Court upheld the trial judge's finding that the applicant was injured in the course of his employment—relying on Form 2, the Investigation Report, the Declaration and witness evidence—and held that an appellate court will not disturb a trial judge's credibility and primary fact findings absent no evidence or incontrovertible contrary documentary evidence; accordingly the judge's findings on liability, the increase of permanent loss of earning capacity to 100% and the extension of sick leave to three years were upheld.
3 Jun 2005
The learned Magistrate properly evaluated the evidence, resolved material discrepancies in favour of the prosecution, found the appellant and DW2 not credible, and the appellate court found no basis to conclude the convictions were unsafe or unsatisfactory and therefore dismissed the appeal.
14 Sept 2000
The magistrate lawfully rejected the appellant's account and, on the proven facts (quantity and packaging of drugs, cash on person, broken tablets and inconsistency with declared earnings), drew the only reasonable inference of trafficking; the sentencing decision (22 months) was within proper judicial discretion and not manifestly excessive.
14 Nov 1984
The trial judge accepted the plaintiff's and Ang's evidence over the defendant's, concluded the defendant's account was not credible and that the purported IOU was a forgery; accordingly the monies in the defendant's US$ savings account were held on trust for the plaintiff and the defendant was ordered to pay US$139,000 to the plaintiff, with US$20,000 of the judgment carrying interest from 5 November 1983; costs awarded to plaintiff.
14 Dec 1973
The magistrate's acceptance of the police officer's evidence, supported by the production of a marked note and the appellant's failure to credibly rebut or to show insurance coverage, was not vitiated by absence of the coins; appellate court will not overturn such factual findings and the fines and mandatory 12‑month disqualification were properly imposed, therefore the appeal is dismissed.