29 Apr 2026
Because the applicant voluntarily withdrew his leave application of his own free will and offered no valid reason to reopen the matter or extend time to appeal, the court refused to extend time and dismissed the application.
20 Dec 2024
Extension of time to appeal was refused because the applicant voluntarily withdrew his leave application, provided no explanation for a substantial delay, failed to identify any error by the Judge or real prospects of success, and therefore the court would not exercise its discretion to extend time.
9 Feb 2024
The application to stay execution of the costs order was dismissed because the Court of Final Appeal had refused leave (rendering the application academic), the applicant failed to demonstrate an arguable prospect of success on appeal or any exceptional circumstances warranting a stay, and the costs claimed were reasonably assessed and awarded to the respondent.
19 Apr 2023
The court refused the out‑of‑time application because the delay (over seven weeks) was unexplained, the proposed appeal duplicated prior rejected arguments and lacked any real prospect of success, and granting extension would cause unfair prejudice by further delaying enforcement; accordingly the court exercised its discretion against extending time and dismissed the 3/1/23 application and related stay requests.
8 Sept 2010
No fair minded and informed person would conclude there was a real possibility of bias; leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal is refused as having no proper basis; because the applicant has persistently abused court process the court is entitled to make a restrictive proceedings order preventing further proceedings on the same subject-matter without leave.
18 Jul 2000
The Court held that the order made on 3 May 2000 was not a final order for the purposes of section 22, and in the absence of any matter of great general or public importance it declined to exercise its discretion to grant leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal, dismissing the application with costs.
26 Jan 1989
The Court held that it has jurisdiction to entertain an appeal from the High Court's grant or refusal of leave under s23 because Hong Kong statutes did not adopt the additional UK restrictions (s1(6A) and s1(7)(b)), there is no justification for implying further exclusions into s14(3), and the Lane v Esdaile principle does not displace the clear statutory scheme in Hong Kong; therefore the refusal of leave by Sears J was an appealable order.