24 Mar 2026
The appeal was dismissed because the applicant failed to identify any specific error in the Leave Decision with sufficient particulars; general and vague assertions are insufficient to overturn a refusal of leave to apply for judicial review, and the subsequent New Documents submitted without leave are inadmissible and irrelevant to the leave application.
31 Dec 2025
The application for leave was dismissed because the applicant failed to pursue the statutory appeal route and failed to satisfy the statutory requirement in s37ZG(3) to demonstrate due diligence for not returning the SCF; absent exhaustion of the statutory appeal and requisite evidence, there was no legal or procedural basis to substitute judicial review for the prescribed appeal mechanism.
23 Dec 2025
The Notice of Motion for leave to appeal was dismissed because the applicant failed to show the intended appeal raises any question of great general or public importance, the grounds advanced were personal and unarguable, new fact-sensitive grounds could not be relied upon at this stage, and the intended appeal had no prospect of success such that statutory requirements for leave under s22(1)(b) were not met.
1 Aug 2025
The applicant's withdrawal application was refused and the leave application dismissed for want of prosecution because the applicant failed to comply with the Court's directions to file an affirmation or statement confirming voluntary withdrawal and safety to return; furthermore, on paper review the Board's Decision disclosed no apparent error of law or procedural unfairness and was not Wednesbury unreasonable, so leave was properly refused and dismissed.
4 Oct 2024
Relief from sanction was refused because the delay (about 5.5 months plus further non-compliance) was serious, the applicant offered no satisfactory or contemporaneous explanation, the proposed appeal had no arguable prospects, and restoration would be unfair and impose prejudice on the interested party and public resources; accordingly the late application was dismissed and the summons struck out.
7 Aug 2023
The Court dismissed the Notice of Motion because the applicant failed to identify any question of great general or public importance under s.22(1)(b) HKCFAO, failed to specify any error in the impugned judgment with sufficient particulars, and sought to rely on new documents and facts that were irrelevant and did not meet the established Ladd v Marshall criteria for admission of fresh evidence; accordingly leave to appeal was refused and the new material was not entertained.
20 Jun 2023
Because the applicant was over one year late, provided no satisfactory explanation (decision sent to last known address), refused to substantiate his claim before the Board, and had no realistic prospect of success given the Board's findings including internal relocation as viable, the court refused to extend time and dismissed the application.
9 Feb 2023
Leave to appeal was refused and the out‑of‑time application dismissed because the applicants failed to identify any question of great general or public importance under s22(1)(b) HKCFAO and failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the delay; there was no basis to extend time or grant leave.
8 Dec 2022
Leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal was refused because the applicant failed to raise the complained grounds in earlier proceedings, failed to provide particulars or evidence, failed to demonstrate any arguable prospect of success and failed to identify any question of great general or public importance under s22(1)(b) or any basis under the 'or otherwise' limb; accordingly there was no basis to grant leave or an extension of time.
8 Sept 2022
Extension of time was refused because the applicant's delay was substantial without a satisfactory reason (failure to provide or update an address) and the intended appeal lacked any real prospect of success as no specific error in the Leave Decision was identified.