6 May 2026
Because the applicant validly withdrew the application and there was nothing outstanding in the action, the correct disposition was to dismiss the application rather than leave the action at large, applying the authority in Manik Md Mahamudun Nabi and Order 53 principles.
24 Jun 2025
Where an applicant voluntarily withdraws an application for leave to apply for judicial review and there are no outstanding matters in the action, the proper order is to dismiss the application rather than leave the action at large.
29 Apr 2024
The court granted leave to apply for judicial review on Grounds 1, 2 and 3 because those grounds were sufficiently arguable to satisfy the leave threshold; the court refused leave on Grounds 4 and 5 because they failed the arguability threshold.
21 Sept 2023
Because the applicant voluntarily applied to withdraw his leave application and there was nothing outstanding in the action, the application must be dismissed in accordance with the Court of Appeal authority in Re Manik Md Mahamudun Nabi [2022] HKCA 471.
28 Jun 2023
Because the applicant voluntarily applied to close/withdraw the leave application and there was nothing outstanding in the action, the proper order is dismissal rather than leaving the action at large.
1 Aug 2022
The applicant expressly withdrew the application for leave; applying Re Manik Md Mahamudun Nabi the court concluded there was nothing outstanding and therefore dismissed the application rather than leaving it at large.
1 Mar 2019
The application for leave to apply for judicial review is dismissed for want of prosecution because the applicant failed to attend the scheduled hearing and the court, exercising its power of active case management as affirmed in Re: Ahmed Syed Rafiq and Choy Bing Wing, may strike out proceedings for non-prosecution.
30 Oct 2017
Leave to appeal was granted on the specified legal questions so that the Court of Final Appeal can determine the correct legal principles governing the grant of Protective Costs Orders in public interest cases, including the role of the applicant's and respondent's financial resources, the relevance of directors' private resources, the relevance of legal aid, and whether PCOs should be determined at the leave stage applying Corner House Research or via a fuller inter partes procedure.
31 Oct 2008
Leave to apply for judicial review in all three matters was refused because the challenges were hypothetical or academic, the applicants lacked sufficient interest or standing, there was undue delay and prior opportunities had existed to raise the issues, and binding authority (Leung and subsequent authorities) and the civil nature of solicitors' disciplinary proceedings rendered the proposed challenges unarguable and an abuse of process.