5 Mar 2012
Permission to appeal refused because the s.22(1) statutory requirements were not met: the decision refusing extension of time was not a final judgment, the applicant failed to show a calculated monetary sum of HK$1,000,000 or more, and no sufficient public importance was demonstrated; costs awarded to respondent.
16 Nov 2006
The application for leave was refused because the 1st defendant failed to show the case fell within s.22(1) Cap.484; the claim did not meet the HK$1,000,000 threshold and the plaintiff's prominence did not establish public importance.
20 Jan 2005
The application for leave to appeal was dismissed because it did not fall within section 22(1)(a) — it was not a final appeal and the amount involved did not meet the requisite threshold — and, on the merits, the prior judgment showed any appeal would be doomed to failure.
27 Feb 1997
Leave to appeal was refused because the applicant failed to demonstrate that the appeal met rule 2(a)’s monetary threshold (claimed figures were speculative and recorded amounts were only some tens of thousands) and failed to show any question of great, general or public importance under rule 2(b).