17 Dec 2025
Because the dismissal resulted from the applicant's voluntary request to withdraw and a subsequent change of mind does not undo that withdrawal, the court correctly dismissed the application and properly refused to extend time for any appeal.
22 Oct 2024
The court accepted the applicant's unopposed withdrawal as voluntary, found there were no outstanding issues, and therefore dismissed the leave application; dismissal was appropriate rather than leaving the action at large, following Manik Md Mahamudun Nabi [2022] HKCA 471.
24 Nov 2023
The Court revoked all twelve summonses because (1) this Court had already determined the leave applications and, under O.59 r2A(8) and s63B Cap.336, the respondent could not seek a rehearing or further appeal on those leave decisions; (2) the respondent failed to apply to the judge below for leave in respect of the March 7 costs decision and gave no special or urgent reasons to justify direct application to the Court of Appeal; accordingly the applications were wholly without merit and were dismissed, and the respondent was ordered to pay the petitioner's costs to be summarily assessed.
27 Sept 2023
The summons to join the husband was refused because his non-refoulement and related judicial review proceedings had already concluded, he had no live subject matter or common issues with the applicants' claims, and familial connection alone did not justify joinder, particularly where he was not himself seeking joinder.
15 Sept 2023
Extension of time was refused because the applicant's delay was unexplained, she failed to provide grounds or a draft appeal showing any arguable public law error, and the Board's adverse credibility and risk findings were supported by evidence and COI; therefore the intended appeal was unarguable and extension would be futile.
30 Aug 2022
Extension of time refused because the applicant failed to show any reasonable prospect of success in the intended appeal and provided no adequate reasons for delay; the Board's adverse credibility and factual findings (claim unsubstantiated, state protection/relocation available) were determinative.
7 Sept 2020
The Court refused to treat the applicant's abandonment as a nullity because the applicant had the capacity and opportunity to pursue the appeal, had obtained legal advice and assistance, failed to provide contemporaneous medical evidence showing incapacity at the time of abandonment, articulated no grounds of appeal and the Court could see no arguable grounds; accordingly the abandonment stood and the appeal remained dismissed.
28 May 2020
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 section 22(1)(b) and no basis was shown under the 'or otherwise' limb; the grounds had already been addressed by the Court.
22 Apr 2020
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 and did not establish any basis under the alternative limb of section 22(1)(b); the applicant's late filing argument (change of address) had already been considered and provided no new ground to warrant leave.
31 Jul 2019
The Notice of Motion for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal was dismissed because the applicant failed to raise a question of great general or public importance as required by s22(1)(b) CFAO, raised new points not previously argued which appellate courts do not ordinarily entertain, presented an unarguable assertion that his life would be in danger, and failed to particularize any bias; furthermore the earlier refusal of leave out of time is final under s14AB HCO.