16 Feb 2026
Because the applicant had obtained Hong Kong residence and withdrew the leave application, there was nothing outstanding; applying Re Manik the court dismissed the out-of-time application for leave to apply for judicial review.
9 Aug 2023
Leave to appeal out of time was refused because the respondent demonstrated a substantial and unexplained delay, had no reasonable prospect of success on the merits of the intended appeal concerning interest and costs, had consented to the amended judgment, and failed to show any error of law or exceptional circumstances warranting extension of time; accordingly the summons for leave dated 27 March 2023 was dismissed.
9 Jun 2023
The first defendant's application for leave to appeal out of time was dismissed because the purported explanation for delay was inconsistent with the chronology and therefore not accepted, and the proposed grounds of appeal (constitutional housing right, ownership by continued occupation and payment, alleged forgery) had no real prospect of success; accordingly the application was refused and costs awarded to the plaintiff.
27 Jun 2022
Applicant provided a reasonable explanation for delay (discovery of Lau's evidence after exchange of witness statements and statutory legal aid stay) and the intended claim against Chan was not shown to be bound to fail at interlocutory stage; because the court must avoid a mini‑trial and factual disputes (credibility of Lau, effect of undertakings) require full hearing, leave to join Chan out of time was appropriate and necessary to resolve alleged joint liability at trial.
12 Sept 2019
The Notice of Motion for leave to appeal out of time is dismissed because the applicant failed to identify a question of great general or public importance under s22(1)(b) Cap 484, the intended appeal is not reasonably arguable, and there is no basis under the "otherwise" limb; no reason existed to depart from deciding the application on the papers.
19 Oct 2017
The application for out-of-time permission to appeal was dismissed because the defendant's six-month delay was excessive and unjustified, he failed to provide acceptable reasons, the proposed grounds derived from the intervener lacked realistic prospects of success, granting leave would prejudice the plaintiff (possession already executed), and a non-lawyer intervener cannot act as the defendant's advocate; costs of the application were awarded to the plaintiff in the sum of HKD 18,385.
23 Apr 2013
Applying O.62 r.3(2) and r.5 the court exercised its discretion and held that because the applicant commenced litigation with solicitor assistance, persisted after legal aid refusal, and lost at trial, her lack of means did not justify departing from the normal order that costs follow the event; the out-of-time application to vary the nisi order was therefore dismissed.
20 Dec 2002
Leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal refused because the application raises primarily disputed questions of fact and a fundamental change of case being advanced for the first time, which does not constitute great general or public importance nor meet the monetary threshold; potential recourse is via proceedings against former lawyers.
12 Mar 1998
The sentencing judge's reasons for withholding the full one-third guilty plea discount were invalid; number of packets and retail value should inform the starting point and prior record only affects entitlement to a character discount; accordingly the full one-third discount must be applied and the sentence reduced from 4 years 2 months to 3 years 8 months.