27 Mar 2026
The application for leave was dismissed because the applicant had been granted permission to stay in Hong Kong and therefore no longer required non-refoulement protection; the court ordered the Form 86 be amended to identify the Director of Immigration as the proper interested party.
30 Jan 2026
The leave application was dismissed because the applicant failed to plead clear, particularised and reasonably arguable public law grounds; the Board's factual findings (including that the loan shark was fictitious and that state protection/internal relocation were available) did not disclose any reviewable error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality such as would justify granting leave.
16 Jan 2026
The application for leave was dismissed because the delay was substantial and unexplained, the applicant failed to provide any statement of reasons, the intended challenge lacked reasonable prospects of success, the Board had considered the merits and correctly found no special circumstances, and granting an extension would prejudice the proper administration.
1 Dec 2025
The grant of permission was refused because the applicant's materials were incoherent and failed to identify any specific reviewable decision or arguable grounds, the relief sought was not properly within judicial review, and the application had no real prospect of success amounting to abuse of process.
30 Sept 2025
The leave application was dismissed because the applicant failed to identify any arguable grounds or make full and frank disclosure as required by Form 86, and the court was satisfied the Board properly applied the law and made factual findings (including availability of state protection and internal relocation) that were not vitiated by any error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality; therefore the challenge had no realistic prospect of success.
18 Sept 2025
Leave to apply for judicial review was dismissed because the applicant failed to plead grounds and the Board's decision was supported by credible factual findings after anxious scrutiny; no legal error, procedural unfairness or irrationality was identified to justify judicial review.
12 Nov 2024
The application for permission was refused because the applicant failed to identify any judgment, order, decision or other legal proceeding, sought an impermissible abstract review of policy or law, and did not set out arguable grounds in Form 86; consequently the application was not reasonably arguable and permission must be denied.
7 Nov 2024
Application dismissed because the applicant failed to plead any grounds in Form 86 and, on the merits, the District Office's letters fell within its duty to resolve an estate management crisis and did not usurp the Lands Tribunal's function.
14 Aug 2023
The application for extension of time to appeal was refused because the applicant failed to identify any reasonably arguable grounds of public law challenge (a mandatory requirement), the Deportation Order was authorized by statute and no procedural unfairness or irrationality was shown, and the intended appeal had no real prospect of success, making extension futile.
16 Jul 2020
The application for leave to apply for judicial review was dismissed because the applicant failed to comply with mandatory Form 86 requirements under Order 53 rule 3(2)(a)(iii), the substantive complaints were either already resolved in earlier proceedings or were private law matters, the complaints against the Buildings Department and the Estate Agents Authority were unparticularised and unsupported or properly disposed of, and the intended application was not reasonably arguable and had no realistic prospect of success.