15 May 2026
The judge correctly refused leave because the applicant failed to identify any viable ground to overturn the refusal and the withdrawal of his appeal was voluntary and therefore valid, so there was no error in the Board acceding to the withdrawal.
11 May 2026
The appeal is dismissed because the application for leave was out of time without adequate excuse, the new complaints were not raised below and lacked merit, the applicant declined offered legal assistance, and no error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality was demonstrated such as to justify interfering with the Judge's refusal of leave.
10 Apr 2026
The application for leave to apply for judicial review was dismissed because the Applicant failed to identify any reasonably arguable ground with a realistic prospect of success: she had remained in Hong Kong without permission since 13 August 2025; the Director was entitled to refuse deferral and was under no duty to take humanitarian factors into account; there was no arguable illegality, irrationality, procedural impropriety, disproportionate interference or discrimination; and the matter was arguable as time‑barred or moot.
9 Apr 2026
The Notice of Motion for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal is dismissed because the Applicant failed to identify any question of great general or public importance under section 22(1)(b) Cap 484, failed to identify any error in the Court's Judgment, raised no reasonably arguable grounds, and provided no basis under the 'otherwise' limb; therefore leave is refused.
17 Mar 2026
The appeal is dismissed because the Applicant failed to raise any viable ground to reverse the Deputy High Court Judge's refusal of leave; no error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board's decision was demonstrated; new points not raised below cannot be advanced for the first time on appeal.
13 Feb 2026
The appeal was dismissed because the applicant failed to advance any viable grounds to reverse the judge's refusal of leave, relied on new points not raised below, and did not demonstrate any error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board's decision that would justify judicial review.
10 Mar 2025
The application for leave was refused because the intended appeal did not raise any question of great general or public importance, the applicant failed to identify any error in the Court of Appeal judgment, new complaints about legal or language assistance were raised for the first time and lacked merit, and the allegations of procedural unfairness and discrimination were bare and lacked particulars, so there was no reasonable prospect of success.
30 Jul 2024
Because the applicant's submissions were general, repetitive and devoid of specific error, and because they did not raise any question of great general or public importance under s22(1)(b) HKCFAO, leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal was refused and the Notice of Motion dismissed.
19 Jul 2024
The notice of motion for leave to appeal was dismissed because the applicant failed to identify any question of general or public importance under section 22(1)(b) of the Court of Final Appeal Ordinance and there was no basis under the 'or otherwise' limb to grant leave.
17 Oct 2023
Court held HA Spousal Policies constitute differential treatment based on sexual orientation and are unlawful under BL25/BOR22 because HA failed to justify them under the four-step proportionality test: the measures lacked sufficient rational connection (HOS) and the HA produced no reliable evidence that exclusion materially advanced the asserted Family Aim or was necessary; BL36/37/145 arguments and administrative efficiency/coherence defenses did not justify the discrimination.