18 Dec 2025
The applicant failed to identify any question of great general or public importance under section 22(1)(b) HKCFAO and relied on vague, unsupported and previously rejected fact‑specific assertions; accordingly leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal was refused.
18 Dec 2025
The Notice of Motion for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal was dismissed because the applicant failed to identify any question of great general or public importance as required by s22(1)(b) HKCFAO, failed to comply with Practice Direction 2.1 by not lodging written submissions, and advanced only fact-specific complaints that did not warrant leave.
9 Apr 2025
The application for leave to appeal was refused because the proposed grounds amounted to impermissible re‑litigation of factual findings, did not raise any issue of general or public importance or other exceptional circumstances under s.22, and no arguable jurisdictional point had been properly pleaded; therefore there was no prospect of a proper appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.
27 Mar 2025
The applicant's notice of motion for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal was struck out and the application dismissed because the applicant failed to demonstrate that the appeal raised any question of great general or public importance under s22(1)(b) and failed to identify any error in the Court of Appeal's prior decision; the appeal was therefore abusive and without reasonable prospect of success.
21 Feb 2025
The Notice of Motion for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal is dismissed because the applicant failed to identify a question of great general or public importance under section 22(1)(b) HKCFAO and presented only vague, unsupported, fact‑specific allegations that did not disclose any arguable error of law in the Court of Appeal's Judgment.
9 Jan 2025
The application was out of time by about 3.5 months with no explanation for the delay and the applicant failed to identify any question of great general or public importance or any other basis under s22(1)(b) HKCFAO; accordingly there was no statutory basis to grant an extension of time or leave to appeal and the notice of motion was dismissed.
6 Mar 2024
The Court refused leave to appeal because the applicants failed to demonstrate any arguable error in the Court of Appeal's decision and failed to show that the proposed appeal involved questions of general or public importance as required by s22(1)(b) of Cap 484; consequently the leave application had no real prospect of success.
7 Jul 2023
Leave to appeal was refused because the applicant failed to identify any question of great general or public importance as required by section 22(1)(b) and no basis was shown under the "or otherwise" limb; statutory criteria for granting leave were not satisfied.
26 Apr 2023
The applicants failed to identify any question of great general or public importance as required by section 22(1)(b) HKCFAO and relied on bare, fact-specific allegations without particulars; accordingly leave to appeal was refused and the Notice of Motion dismissed.
23 Feb 2023
The Notice of Motion for leave to appeal was dismissed because the applicant failed to identify any question of great general or public importance as required by s22(1)(b) HKCFAO and there was no basis under the 'or otherwise' limb; the intended appeal had no merit.