26 Nov 2024
The appeal is dismissed because the applicant failed to demonstrate any error of law or that the judge was plainly wrong; there was no good reason for the applicant's serious delay and no prospect of success in the intended judicial review, so refusal to extend time was justified.
22 Jul 2024
[2024] HKCFI 1965
3 May 2024
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 as required by s22(1)(b) HKCFAO, failed to comply with Practice Direction 2.1 by lodging written submissions, and advanced only general, vague and fact‑specific allegations that lacked merit.
6 Jun 2023
The debtor failed to demonstrate any arguable grounds of appeal or provide evidentiary support for the asserted grounds; therefore a stay under s.104 is not justified and the application to amend the stay summons is unnecessary; the stay summons and amendment summons are dismissed.
9 Dec 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), the proposed appeal lacked merit and a reasonable prospect of success, and there was no basis under the "otherwise" limb of s 22(1)(b).
20 Oct 2022
Extension of time to appeal was refused because the applicant's delay of over 1.5 months was substantial and unexplained, he failed to identify any error of law or procedural unfairness in the Leave Decision with specific particulars, and the intended appeal had no real prospect of success so extending time would be futile.
9 Sept 2022
Extension of time to appeal was refused because the applicant was 48 days out of time without a satisfactory explanation for the delay, failed to provide any arguable grounds of appeal so the intended appeal had no prospect of success, and allowing the late challenge would be an abuse of process causing prejudice to the respondent and public administration.
29 Nov 2021
The application for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal was dismissed because the applicant did not identify any specific errors or viable grounds of appeal nor any question of great general or public importance; general assertions of fear of refoulement are insufficient to justify leave.
13 May 2021
The judge granted bail pending appeal because the Applicant was a proper bail risk and there were reasonable prospects of success on appeal based on a real arguable error that the learned Magistrate may have mischaracterised s41 as strict liability and confused burdens/standards of proof; coupled with the likelihood that a substantial portion of the 12‑month sentence would be served before appeal determination, justice required admission to bail.
30 Mar 2021
Bail pending appeal was granted because the appellant demonstrated reasonably arguable grounds of appeal with a reasonable prospect of success, the respondent did not oppose bail, and although there was a real likelihood the sentence would have been served before the appeal, the appellant accepted the risk of returning to custody if unsuccessful; the proposed bail terms provided adequate safeguards to ensure surrender to court.