4 Oct 2024
The judge correctly refused leave because the Board conducted a de novo hearing, made adverse credibility findings supported by evidence, there was no demonstrable error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board's decision, and the proposed judicial review had no realistic prospect of success; appeal dismissed.
15 Apr 2024
Leave refused because the Board conducted a de novo hearing, the applicant's allegations were unparticularised, the Board's adverse credibility findings were open on the evidence and did not involve error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality, and therefore the proposed judicial review had no realistic prospect of success.
14 Oct 2019
At the interlocutory stage the court will not strike out pleaded matters or grant declaratory relief where there are triable issues of fact about possession; strike out is inappropriate absent clear demonstration that the pleadings disclose no reasonable cause of action or defence and that there is no factual dispute requiring trial.
13 May 2016
The court found exceptional circumstances because the leave application was hopeless, the Interested Party had a legitimate interest and provided a helpful Initial Response, and therefore costs should follow the event; the applicant was ordered to pay the Interested Party's costs of HKD 25,000.
7 Oct 2015
The judicial review is dismissed: the Board lawfully and reasonably confirmed the Public Officer's refusal to grant a mahjong licence. The 100m measure is a flexible administrative yardstick not a fixed legal requirement; the Board was entitled to adopt the Public Officer's findings, to take police input into account, and provided adequate reasons in context; there was no unlawful restriction of the Board's de novo appellate powers.
12 Nov 1987
The Court of Appeal set aside the trial judgment because the pleaded factual issues were not adequately canvassed at trial and the trial judge failed to ensure a fair and orderly presentation of the parties' cases given they were unrepresented; because of that procedural unfairness the appropriate remedy is to set aside the judgment and order a hearing de novo without the Court expressing final findings on contract enforceability or representations.