4 Jun 2025
The applicant failed to identify any question of great general or public importance nor any other basis under section 22(1)(b) Cap.484; therefore the statutory requirements for granting leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal were not met and leave was refused.
9 Nov 2021
Leave to appeal was refused because the applicant failed to identify any question of great general or public importance as required by s22(1)(b), the arguments had been considered and rejected in the earlier judgment, and no basis existed under the "otherwise" limb of s22(1)(b).
7 Oct 2021
The Court dismissed the application for leave because the applicant failed to identify any question of great general or public importance as required by section 22(1)(b) and advanced only general, unsupported complaints; therefore the statutory requirements for granting leave were not met.
11 Aug 2021
The applicant failed to identify any question of great general or public importance nor any other basis under s.22(1)(b); she filed no grounds or written submissions as directed, therefore the statutory requirements for leave were not met and leave to appeal was refused.
27 May 2019
No question of great general or public importance was identified in the applicants' grounds and no basis existed under the "or otherwise" limb of section 22(1)(b) Cap. 484 to submit the matter to the Court of Final Appeal; therefore leave to appeal was refused.
4 Apr 2019
The application for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal was dismissed because the notice was filed 28 days late, service failure resulted from the applicant's provision of an incorrect/incomplete address and failure to notify change of address, and the applicant failed to raise any question of great general or public importance or any other basis under section 22(1)(b) Cap.484 to justify granting leave.
20 Feb 2019
Leave to appeal was refused because the applicant failed to identify any question of great general or public importance, his grounds were confined to his individual case and irrelevant to the Court's reasons for dismissing the appeal, and there was no basis under the 'otherwise' limb of s22(1)(b); accordingly the statutory requirements for granting leave were not met.
27 Jul 2007
Leave to appeal refused because the contested findings of fact were concurrent and specific to the case and therefore did not meet s22(1)(b)'s threshold of matters of great general or public importance, and the contested point of statutory interpretation had been addressed by the Court of Final Appeal such that granting leave was for that court, not this court.