7 Oct 2024
Permission to appeal was refused because the defendant failed to demonstrate a reasonable prospect of success or other sufficient reason to hear a late appeal: his grounds attack a non‑appealable sale order and therefore do not amount to a defence to the plaintiff's claim; there was no evidence satisfying s5(2) of the Ordinance; the delay was unexplained and new evidence would not alter the outcome.
5 Apr 2024
Application for leave to appeal out of time refused because the delay of over four and a half years was excessive, the reasons given were not acceptable, the proposed appeal had weak prospects of success, and granting leave would unfairly prejudice the plaintiff; no costs ordered because the plaintiff was unrepresented.
16 Feb 2022
The 18‑month sentence was within the applicable appellate guideline for a repeat offender; the appellant's stated mitigation did not amount to a reason to depart from the guideline, and therefore the court would not interfere with the sentence.
17 Aug 2021
The court refused the defendant's application for a late appeal due to an unexplained delay of over eight months and granted the plaintiffs a six-month extension to execute the sale; the court ordered the defendant within seven days to notify the Water Authority and CLP to terminate accounts and to allow plaintiffs to retrieve two wooden ladders, and held the defendant liable for expenses arising from his refusal to deliver vacant possession to be assessed after sale and deducted from his share; defendant to pay plaintiffs' costs of his summons to be assessed by the taxing officer.
25 Jun 2019
The court dismissed the summons because it had no jurisdiction to entertain the applicant's attempt to appeal after leave for a late appeal had already been refused; the requested amendments were substantive (not clerical) and therefore not permitted under the slip rule; the applicant's delay in seeking to appeal the January 8 order was inexcusable and the proposed appeal had no real prospect of success; costs were awarded to the respondent in the sum of HK$22,500.
9 May 2017
The appeal fails because the trial judge applied correct authorities, properly treated the forged identity document as an aggravating factor, and the concurrent sentencing structure giving an effective 17 months was within the legitimate sentencing range; comparative assertions without factual parity do not establish excessiveness.
6 Mar 2014
Because one of the offences contributing to the 16 demerit points was subsequently withdrawn by the police, the statutory threshold for making a 3‑month disqualification order under s.8(3)(a) no longer existed; therefore the disqualification order was quashed.
26 Apr 2012
The magistrate and this court accepted credible evidence that the appellant was imprisoned in the mainland during the relevant period, which prevented him from reporting and rendered the breach non‑intentional; accordingly the forfeiture order was set aside and the bail returned.
23 Aug 2002
The applicant's prior assistance to police was unrelated to the present offences and predated them, was not disclosed at mitigation, the applicant gave no explanation for delay in appealing, and the trial judge's application of authorities and sentencing discounts was correct; therefore the application for leave to appeal against sentence is dismissed.