20 Feb 2026
Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to establish any arguable error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the TCAB decision which properly applied section 37ZG; the application was also out of time and no basis was shown to extend time.
28 Nov 2025
The application for leave was dismissed because (1) the applicant failed to identify any reasonably arguable public law error against the TPB and the TPB's advisory clause is not part of the decision; (2) the HKSHC acted as a private landowner and its decision to make the planning application was a preparatory act not amenable to judicial review; and (3) the application was brought out of time with no good reason for extension and had no realistic prospect of success.
19 Nov 2025
Leave dismissed because the application was filed more than two months late without any satisfactory explanation, the intended challenge disclosed no arguable legal error or procedural unfairness affecting the Director's or Board's decisions, and the Board and Director reasonably found low risk, available state protection and internal relocation alternatives.
6 Nov 2025
Refusal to extend time and dismissal of the leave application because the applicant delayed several months without explanation and the proposed grounds were not reasonably arguable with any realistic prospect of success given the Board's detailed credibility and COI-based findings, absence of public law error, availability of state protection and internal relocation, and absence of prejudice or questions of public importance warranting extension.
25 Jul 2024
The application for leave was dismissed because it was filed out of time without good reason to extend, the applicant failed to identify any arguable legal error or procedural unfairness in the Director's or Board's decisions which had properly assessed credibility, state protection and internal relocation, and there was no prospect of success (reinforced by the applicant's later withdrawal).
23 Jan 2024
The applicant failed to demonstrate that the intended appeal raised any question of great general or public importance or that the 'otherwise' limb of s22(1)(b) was engaged; therefore the statutory requirements for granting leave were not met and the application was dismissed.
21 Nov 2023
The Applicant validly withdrew her appeal to the Board, rendering the Board functus officio; the Applicant's application for leave to apply for judicial review was out of time and she gave no satisfactory explanation to extend time; there were no reasonably arguable errors of law, irrationality or procedural unfairness identified in the Director's decision (which permissibly found low risk and availability of state protection/internal relocation); consequently leave was properly refused and the appeal dismissed.
15 Mar 2023
The notice of motion was dismissed because the applicant failed to satisfactorily explain the four‑day delay and the intended appeal did not raise any question of great general or public importance and was unarguable on the merits; accordingly, there was no basis to grant leave or to extend time under Cap.484.
17 Feb 2023
Although the Unless Order did not impose an express sanction, the defendant made a deliberate decision not to apply within the prescribed time, failed to provide acceptable explanations or a substantial change of circumstances to justify extension, and consequently the court declined to extend time or order a jury trial and dismissed the summons.
25 Mar 2022
The court granted limited extensions to 13 April 2022 because there was a material change in circumstances (suspension of legal visits and deterioration in the COVID-19 situation affecting the plaintiff's solicitors) that justified additional time; however, given the plaintiff's prior pattern of significant delays the court imposed an unless order to ensure compliance and awarded costs to the defendant.