Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
Hong Kong decisions
Decisions matching the current search
The Court of Appeal refused leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal in a non-refoulement claim, finding no question of public importance or prospect of success.
The Court of Appeal refused leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal in Rajwinder Singh’s non-refoulement case, finding no public importance or prospect of success.
The Court of Appeal dismissed an application for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal in a non-refoulement matter, finding no public importance or prospects of success.
The Court of Appeal allowed the defendant’s applications to extend time for leave-to-appeal steps, preferring an informed decision after reasons were handed down.
The court refused an extension of time to appeal a refusal of leave for judicial review, finding the delay unexplained and no arguable ground for success.
Leave to appeal was granted in part because the applicant demonstrated arguable errors of law or principle in the Tribunal's handling of specific items (items 5,6,8,12) regarding whether the tenant could discharge repair obligations by the least onerous method and in the assessment of repair duration and rent loss (items 14 and 15) including responsibility for rent during key transit; all other factual findings were not shown to be plainly wrong and leave was refused for those items; costs to follow the appeal outcome.
Source excerpt
The fresh evidence applications were refused because most documents were not genuinely new or lacked independent value and did not satisfy Ladd v Marshall; the new materials could not overturn the trial judge's credibility and factual findings which were supported by evidence; consequently there was no reasonable prospect of success on appeal and leave to appeal was refused; applications for stay and admission of fresh evidence denied and costs awarded to respondents.
Source excerpt
The Court of Appeal dismissed an in-person applicant’s motion for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal, finding no question of great general or public importance.
The District Court dismissed two plaintiffs’ applications for leave to appeal, holding there was no arguable case of reasonable prospects of success, while continuing a Mareva injunction interimlys.
The District Court dismissed two plaintiffs’ applications for leave to appeal, holding there was no reasonable prospect of success and that the Mareva injunction issues were wrongly framed.
Explore more
