28 Jan 2026
The applicant unequivocally withdrew the application for leave and there was no evidence of compulsion or any outstanding matter; accordingly the appropriate disposition was dismissal of the application rather than leaving the action at large.
3 Dec 2025
The court dismissed the applicants' application for leave to apply for judicial review and made no order as to costs.
3 Dec 2025
Leave to apply for judicial review was dismissed because the applicant did not establish sufficient grounds for leave under the applicable test for judicial review leave.
9 Jan 2025
The court granted leave to apply for judicial review on the papers because the applicant demonstrated arguable grounds at the permission stage and an oral hearing on leave was unnecessary; the court directed the parties to agree directions to bring the matter to a substantive hearing and reserved costs.
19 Dec 2023
The Court granted leave to apply for judicial review on the papers because the applicants demonstrated sufficient arguable grounds to proceed; the Court ordered the parties to liaise and propose jointly agreed directions to prepare for a substantive hearing, relying on established practice directions and Order 53 time limits.
3 Apr 2023
The court granted leave to apply for judicial review on the papers and directed the parties to propose case management directions and to comply with Order 53 timelines including service of the leave order, issuance of the originating summons and disclosure of affidavits.
10 Oct 2022
The court granted leave because the applicant demonstrated arguable grounds and potential urgency; accordingly the court fixed a directions hearing to manage urgent case progression and imposed compliance with Order 53 timelines for service, issuing the originating summons and disclosure of affidavits.
9 Aug 2022
The court granted leave because the applicant demonstrated an arguable case on the papers meeting the leave-stage threshold; consequential procedural directions were given to manage the substantive judicial review.
11 Nov 2021
Permission to appeal was refused because the applicant's grounds had no reasonable prospect of success: the factual analysis of aggregated assets showed at most a limited claim (estimated at HKD200,000) and the parties reached a negotiated settlement of HKD100,000 which the court endorsed; procedural complaints did not establish a miscarriage of justice warranting leave.
11 Jan 2000
The court granted judgment for the 1st defendant in terms of paragraphs 1–4 of the Order 14 summons and ordered costs against the plaintiff because the plaintiff's attempted Order 14 application was not filed, breached mandatory requirements (no supporting affidavit and insufficient service), and would in any event have been dismissed.