23 Apr 2026
The court held that it could not deny the successful party its costs entitlement solely because the opponent was elderly or indigent, but it could reduce the quantum to reflect proportionality and reasonableness; accordingly the interim costs order was reduced from HK$52,000 to HK$40,000 given the simplicity of the issues and prior preparatory work by the respondent's counsel.
22 Nov 2023
Application for leave to apply for judicial review dismissed because the applicant had statutory alternative remedies for the DLA decision, the Masters dismissal of the appeal was not shown to be tainted by illegality, irrationality or unfairness, there was no evidence of LADs use of AI or of the Masters procedural impropriety, and the applicants substantive claims largely fell within the Labour Tribunals exclusive jurisdiction or were excepted from legal aid.
10 Oct 2023
Leave to appeal was refused because the applicant failed to show the Court of Appeal's decision was wrong in law and failed to identify any question of great general or public importance under s22(1)(b) HKCFAO; no basis existed under the "or otherwise" limb.
21 Mar 2023
The Notice of Motion for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal was dismissed because the applicant failed to identify any question of great general or public importance under s.22(1)(b) Cap. 484, advanced only broad and unparticularised and unarguable complaints about lack of oral hearing and language assistance, and failed to indicate what substantive arguments he would have raised had an oral hearing or assistance been provided; accordingly the statutory requirements for leave were not met.
14 Nov 2022
Leave to appeal was refused because the applicant failed to identify any question of great general or public importance as required by section 22(1)(b) HKCFAO and no alternative basis under the 'or otherwise' limb was shown; consequently statutory requirements for granting leave were not met.
26 Jul 2022
Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the intended grounds were not reasonably arguable: the intended High Court claim arose from the employment contract and fell within the Labour Tribunal's exclusive jurisdiction for which legal aid is unavailable; the Master correctly treated the appeal as a de novo assessment, did not commit public law error, gave adequate reasons in context, and the DLA decision was not amenable to review where the statutory appeal was pursued.
26 May 2022
Leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal was refused because the applicant failed to identify any question of general or public importance under s22(1)(b), his submissions raised new grounds not previously argued (which the Court will not entertain), and the complaints were fact‑sensitive and insufficient to meet the statutory threshold for leave.
30 Sept 2021
Leave refused because the applicant failed to show a real prospect of success: the termination decision became academic after the Ombudsman reopened investigations on an alternative proof of address; the written‑communication measure was within the Ombudsman's statutory procedural powers and not Wednesbury‑unreasonable or procedurally unfair; identity and authenticity allegations were speculative and unsupported.
15 Jun 2021
Leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal was refused because the applicant did not identify any question of great general or public importance as required by s22(1)(b) Cap 484, failed to pinpoint specific errors in the Court of Appeal judgment, and advanced grounds that were new and not canvassed below; there was therefore no basis to grant leave.
10 Feb 2021
Leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal was refused because the applicant failed to identify any arguable question of great general or public importance under s22(1)(b) HKCFAO, his complaint about lack of an oral hearing was not raised earlier and he failed to show real prejudice from its absence; accordingly there was no basis to grant leave.