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 was dismissed because the applicant failed to identify any question of great general or public importance under section 22(1)(b) HKCFAO and her submissions were vague, unsupported, and fact‑specific, amounting to an attempt to re‑run previously rejected arguments.
15 Dec 2025
The application for leave to appeal was dismissed because the applicant failed to show that the intended appeal raised any question of great general or public importance under section 22(1)(b) of the Court of Final Appeal Ordinance and also failed to demonstrate any prospects of success; therefore leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal was refused and the Notice of Motion dismissed.
28 Nov 2025
Leave to appeal was refused because the applicant failed to identify any question of great general or public importance and failed to particularise any error of law; therefore there was no proper basis to grant leave under section 22(1)(b).
28 Oct 2025
Leave to appeal was refused because the applicants failed to identify any question of great general or public importance under section 22(1)(b); their submissions were confined to fact‑specific allegations which the court found unarguable and there was no basis under the "or otherwise" limb.
23 Oct 2025
Leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal under s22(1)(b) was refused because the applicant's grounds related solely to the facts of his individual claim, did not raise any question of great general or public importance, were unarguable, and there was no basis under the 'or otherwise' limb of the statutory test.
16 Sept 2025
The applicant failed to identify any question of great general or public importance under section 22(1)(b) of the Court of Final Appeal Ordinance; her assertions were broad, vague and factual matters for the Board, and there was no basis under the 'or otherwise' limb to grant leave, therefore the notice of motion for leave to appeal was dismissed.
29 May 2025
The application for leave to appeal was dismissed because the applicant failed to show the intended appeal raised a question of great general or public importance under s22(1)(b) Cap 484 and failed to demonstrate any prospects of success; determination on the papers was appropriate in the absence of written submissions.
16 May 2025
The statutory requirements of section 22(1)(b) were not met because the applicant's grounds related solely to the facts of her individual claim, did not raise any question of great general or public importance, and were unarguable; accordingly leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal was refused and the Notice of Motion dismissed.
15 May 2025
The notice of motion for leave to appeal was dismissed because the applicant failed to comply with the statutory time limit and did not provide any adequate explanation for the delay, failed to identify any question of great general or public importance under s22(1)(b) HKCFAO, and there was no basis to grant leave under the 'or otherwise' limb or to extend time under s24(5).