11 Jan 2024
The claim was struck out because the plaintiff lacked standing to sue on behalf of the deceased, the pleaded case disclosed no reasonable cause of action and was frivolous or an abuse of process, the criminal allegations were unsupported by records and inappropriate for resolution by private civil summons, and the prerequisites for declaratory relief were not satisfied.
30 Jun 2021
The application for leave to amend and for leave to apply for judicial review is refused because prosecutorial decisions are protected by Basic Law Article 63 and will not be reviewed absent truly exceptional circumstances which were not established; the Applicant failed to show a legitimate expectation to be informed before the expiry of the statutory time-bar, lacked standing, and the Decision was a lawfully based insufficiency-of-evidence determination made and communicated before the time-bar, rendering JR inappropriate and academic.
29 Apr 2021
The Court granted leave on Questions 1 and 3–5 because those questions are of great general or public importance warranting consideration by the Court of Final Appeal; leave on Question 2 was refused because the double proportionality argument was not pleaded or argued in the courts below and is fact‑sensitive requiring evidence that is not before the Court of Final Appeal. Costs of the leave application were ordered in the cause.
24 Jan 2020
The application for leave to appeal is refused because the impugned claims relate to common parts and under the Building Management Ordinance such rights must be pursued by the incorporated owners; the applicants therefore lack standing and their proposed grounds have no reasonable prospect of success; no other reason exists to justify a hearing.
12 Jun 2019
BL 75(1) prescribes the quorum for the Legislative Council sitting in plenary and does not apply to meetings of a committee of the whole Council; the Council validly amended Rule 17(1) to set a separate quorum for the committee of the whole Council; applicants' substantive judicial review applications are dismissed.
26 Sept 2013
The court found that on the material before it the trustees' continued treatment of Toggenburger as a creditor (based on an asserted assignment and documents) did not amount to misconduct or an inability to act impartially and was not a proper basis for removal under s96(2). The trustees' conduct in relation to the appeal and funding did not impugn their office; major creditors supported the trustees. Accordingly no statutory ground for removal was established and the application was dismissed.
22 Mar 2006
The application was refused because the applicants lacked sufficient interest to bring the judicial review (their interest was commercial and not directly a planning interest), and on the merits the Board did not err in law or fail to take relevant matters into account because there was no material before it to show the asphalt plant was not a genuine temporary use and the Board properly exercised its discretionary planning power.
3 Aug 2004
The application was improperly constituted because the dispute about the validity of the resolutions concerns the Incorporated Owners and the owner of Unit T5-26A; management committees are not separate legal persons with an interest to seek declarations about resolutions in their own names, therefore the application could not proceed as framed and must be adjourned for proper reconstitution of parties or pursued in the Small Claims Tribunal.
23 Jan 1995
Leave to challenge was granted only in part: the judge held that none of the individual applicants had standing to challenge the decision in para 1(2)(iii) and granted the Association conditional leave subject to filing evidence of at least one affected former member; the judge refused to grant a stay of implementation of the two challenged decisions, concluding damages would be adequate and that the prejudice to respondents and third parties from a stay would outweigh applicants' interests; the judge directed expedited procedural timetables including filing of respondents' evidence within 42…