22 Apr 2026
The appeal is dismissed because the applicant failed to demonstrate any error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Judge's refusal of leave or in the Board's factual findings, and the applicant's procedural non‑compliance (failure to lodge skeleton submissions) justified debarment and disposition of the appeal on the papers.
2 Apr 2026
Given the cogent evidence of internet fraud, the defendant's neutral stance and absence of evidence that account holders had directed account operation, the Court granted a Norwich Pharmacal order limited to specified particulars and narrowly defined records, and granted ancillary gagging, anonymity and no-inspection/sealing orders while emphasising that requests to hear in private and for secrecy must follow Practice Direction 25.1 and proper interim procedure for gagging orders must ordinarily be followed.
3 Mar 2026
The appeal is dismissed because the applicant failed to demonstrate any error of law, procedural unfairness or Wednesbury unreasonableness by the Judge or the Board; the Board's adverse factual findings were open on the evidence; and the applicant's non-compliance with Practice Direction 4.1 justified the hearing being vacated and the appeal being dealt with on paper.
23 Jan 2026
Given the Company's failure to comply with Rule 32(1) and absence of satisfactory explanation for the delay, and having regard to longstanding practice and the need to protect the petition process and third parties, it was proper to impose a substantial payment condition as the price for leave to file evidence out of time; the Company's proposed grounds centering on jurisdictional clause did not demonstrate reasonable prospects of success and would not have avoided the need for security at the time of the hearing.
18 Dec 2025
The Court dismissed the application for leave because the applicant failed to identify any question of great general or public importance under s22(1)(b) HKCFAO, did not specify any error in the Court of Appeal Judgment, filed vague and unsupported assertions directed at the Board’s decision, failed to comply with Practice Direction 2.1, and therefore the intended appeal had no merit.
18 Dec 2025
Because the applicants failed to identify any question of great general or public importance under section 22(1)(b) HKCFAO, failed to point to errors with specific particulars and failed to comply with Practice Direction 2.1, their application for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal was rightly dismissed.
18 Dec 2025
The Notice of Motion for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal was dismissed because the applicant failed to identify any question of great general or public importance as required by s22(1)(b) HKCFAO, failed to comply with Practice Direction 2.1 by not lodging written submissions, and advanced only fact-specific complaints that did not warrant leave.
1 Dec 2025
The contributories' new evidence application, filed without prior permission in breach of PD 4.1 para 15 and late, was refused; having regard to the work done, the lateness and the urgency and duplication of manpower, the court summarily assessed and awarded costs to the petitioner at reduced figures of $157,000 for the leave application and $107,295 for the new evidence application, payable forthwith by the contributories.
27 Aug 2025
Leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal was refused because the applicant failed to identify any question of great general or public importance under s22(1)(b), failed to point to any particular mistakes or unfairness in the Court of Appeal's judgment, and there was no basis under the 'or otherwise' limb; procedural non-compliance justified determination on paper and dismissal of the application.
27 Aug 2025
Leave to appeal under section 22(1)(b) is refused where the applicant fails to identify any question of great general or public importance or to demonstrate any specific error or unfairness in the Court of Appeal's judgment; failure to comply with procedural directions to file submissions supports determination on paper and dismissal of the application.