Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Allegation of bias

Legal area

Court

9 May 2025

THE JOINT AND SEVERAL TRUSTEE OF THE PROPERTY OF SO CHING WAN v. ASSEN LTD (NOW IN LIQUIDATION) AND OTHERS

Citation

[2025] HKCA 410
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP66/2024

The Court refused leave to appeal out of time because the applicant’s delay was inexcusable and significant, the proposed appeal had no real or strongly arguable prospect of success as the discovery sought was irrelevant and a fishing exercise, the bias allegations were unparticularised and meritless, and it was not in the interests of justice to hear a hopeless appeal; accordingly both summonses dismissed and indemnity costs ordered to the respondents (HK$244,150.50) assessed on summary basis as order nisi.
16 Oct 2023

THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF KAI TAK GARDEN (CHOI HUNG ROAD) v. WOO TAK YAN AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 2685
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCSA9/2023

Leave to appeal refused for both applications because the Tribunal's Directions Order and subsequent Award were within its case management discretion, the Section 26A sanction was lawfully and proportionately applied after opportunities to comply, no arguable error of law was shown, and the Award's factual findings were open on the evidence and not amenable to appellate interference.
11 Jul 2023

EKA MUGIASIH v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

Citation

[2023] HKCA 831
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP381/2022

Leave to appeal and any extension of time were refused because the applicant failed to comply with procedural directions, sought to advance new grounds outside the judicial review time limits, and did not demonstrate any prospect of success or any question of great general or public importance under section 22(1)(b); bare assertions without particulars or evidence are insufficient to obtain leave or an extension.
16 Jul 2021

RE ISLAM ASHRAFUL

Citation

[2021] HKCA 999
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV181/2020

The applicant's Notice of Motion for leave did not identify any question of great general or public importance and failed to engage with the Court's reasons of 3 May 2021 or to raise any discernible or arguable ground; accordingly leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal was refused and the Notice of Motion dismissed.
27 Jun 2019

RE JARNAIL SINGH

Citation

[2019] HKCA 707
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV128/2018

Application for leave to appeal was dismissed because the appellant failed to comply with an unless order and did not seek relief under the procedural rule, showed no intention to prosecute the appeal, and failed to identify any question of great general or public importance or any basis under the "otherwise" limb of s22(1)(b) Cap 484; accordingly the motion lacked merit.
4 Oct 2018

RE BASHIR ARFAN

Citation

[2018] HKCA 659
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV45/2018

The application for leave was dismissed because the applicant failed to identify any question of law or public importance pursuant to s22(1)(b) Cap 484, and the issues raised were purely factual and therefore inappropriate grounds for leave.
11 Dec 2006

LEE LAI MAN v. HKSAR

Citation

LEE LAI MAN v. HKSAR
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FAMC44/2006

The Court refused leave because the Court of First Instance had addressed each ground comprehensively and there was no arguable case demonstrating substantial and grave injustice; credibility findings by the Magistrate were open to him and not shown to be vitiated by error, bias or counsel incompetence sufficient to justify appellate intervention.
7 Jul 2000

MAK CHIU MING AND OTHERS v. CHEUNG LAI WA t/a R & C CO. AND OTHERS

Citation

MAK CHIU MING AND OTHERS v. CHEUNG LAI WA t/a R & C CO. AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCLA50/2000

Leave to appeal was refused because the Applicants failed to establish a prima facie legal error: the transcript shows the Presiding Officer conducted a proper and adequate investigation into the accuracy of the work records, his 70% adjustment was based on evidence and admissions and amounted to a factual assessment rather than an appealable point of law, and no clear bias or failure to discharge statutory duty under s20(3) was demonstrated.
26 Sept 1996

LEE SAI HO v. DIRECTOR OF LANDS

Citation

LEE SAI HO v. DIRECTOR OF LANDS
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV176/1996

The notice of appeal failed to identify any question of law as required by statute and rules; the Court of Appeal has no jurisdiction to re‑examine the Lands Tribunal's factual valuation or re-open the entire award, and therefore there was no appealable point of law and the appeal was incompetent and properly struck out.