30 Apr 2026
The appeal was dismissed because the applicant failed to identify any error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Judge's refusal of leave; the Board's adverse credibility findings were open on the evidence and properly considered by the Judge, and the applicant advanced no viable grounds of appeal.
19 Feb 2024
The 22 November 2023 non-religious affidavit was filed without the required leave under the District Court Rules and contrary to an earlier court direction; therefore it must be removed and the appeal against its removal is dismissed.
21 Sept 2022
The application for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal is refused because the applicant failed to demonstrate any question of general or public importance under CFAO s22(1)(b), the High Court Ordinance s14AA is inapplicable, the issues raised were previously considered and rejected on appeal, and no breach of natural justice or perverse error in the Medical Council's decision was shown.
24 Sept 2018
The judge below and this Court correctly held that the applicant did not demonstrate any error of law or procedural unfairness: the NCF was translated and read back, no specific mistranslation or prejudice was identified, the lack of counsel on appeal caused no demonstrated prejudice, credibility findings and COI reliance fell within the Board's evaluative remit, and therefore there was no prospect of success in a judicial review; the appeal is dismissed.
24 Aug 2018
Extension of time to appeal was refused because the applicant failed to provide any reasonable explanation for the delay, failed to advance any viable ground for judicial review before the deputy judge, and the intended appeal had no real prospect of success; therefore the summons for extension of time was dismissed.
9 Oct 1987
The appeal was allowed and the Master's order set aside in its entirety because the action was a single proceeding containing an infant's claim which could not properly be disposed of by the Master's dismissal without extending time for the whole appeal; the trial judge's attempt to limit extension to part of the action was insupportable.
12 Oct 1984
Appeal limited to parts specified in Notice of Appeal; contractor retains common law right of set-off unless contract clearly excludes it, but the Defendant's asserted set-off for prolongation/site overheads was a shadowy, unparticularised defence and insufficient to defeat summary judgment; therefore the Master's summary judgment for $949,570 was upheld and the appeal dismissed.