16 Sept 2024
Leave to appeal was refused because the applicant failed to identify any question of great general or public importance, did not identify any error in the Court of Appeal judgment, and the intended appeal had no merits and no reasonable prospect of success under s 22(1)(b) Cap 484.
8 Aug 2024
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, did not demonstrate any error in the Court of Appeal judgment or raise any viable ground of appeal, and the intended appeal had no merits or reasonable prospect of success.
4 Mar 2024
Leave to appeal was refused because the applicant failed to identify any question of great general or public importance, did not demonstrate any error in the Court of Appeal judgment or raise viable grounds of appeal, and the intended appeal had no merits and no reasonable prospect of success under s22(1)(b) Cap 484.
27 Jul 2023
Leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal was refused because the applicant failed to identify any question of great general or public importance, the proposed appeal had no merits and no reasonable prospect of success, and there was no basis to grant leave under the 'or otherwise' limb of s22(1)(b).
27 Jan 2022
The Notice of Motion was dismissed because the applicant failed to identify any question of great general or public importance under section 22(1)(b) HKCFAO and proffered only vague, unsupported allegations, providing no basis to exercise the Court's discretion to grant leave (including the 'or otherwise' limb).
20 Aug 2021
Leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal was refused because the applicant failed to identify any question of great general or public importance or any specific error in the judgments below and failed to engage with the reasons for dismissal; therefore discretionary leave under s22(1)(b) was not warranted.
1 Feb 2021
Leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal was refused because the applicant failed to identify any question of great general or public importance or any specific error in the judgments below and failed to comply with procedural requirements to file written submissions, such that no reasonably arguable ground for leave existed.
3 Dec 2009
The wife's application for ancillary relief is an unliquidated monetary claim and does not qualify as an appeal as of right under section 22(1)(a) because it does not assert a proprietary entitlement; therefore leave as of right is refused, but leave to appeal is granted on discretionary grounds because reasonably arguable questions of law of sufficient importance were raised.
6 Sept 2007
Leave to appeal was refused because the contested construction issue was specific to the contract and did not raise a question of great general or public importance; the plaintiff failed to demonstrate with the requisite certainty that damages would exceed the statutory monetary threshold because there was no admissible evidence on quantum and no discovery, and even if the threshold were met the court would not exercise its exceptional discretion to grant leave in the circumstances.
16 Dec 2002
Leave to appeal was refused because the automatic right under s.22(1)(a) does not encompass unliquidated damages; the contested post-assessment earnings were unliquidated and there were no reasonable prospects they would be restored on further appeal, so under s.22(1)(b) the Court properly exercised its discretion to refuse leave.