30 Oct 2025
A v. B
- Citation
- [2025] HKCA 965
- Court
- Court of Appeal
- Case number
- CAMP178/2025
Leave to appeal was refused because the applicant advanced new grounds not raised below without acceptable explanation and because the proposed grounds lacked a reasonable prospect of success: the judge did not misapprehend the evidence in characterising the disciplinary council’s conclusion as effectively a finding supported by circumstantial evidence, and he properly applied the high interlocutory threshold and assessed the balance of convenience, including the weak and inadmissible nature of late evidence about Y withdrawing; accordingly no appellate intervention was justified.