16 Apr 2026
The application for leave was dismissed because the applicant failed to identify any reasonably arguable public law grounds with adequate particulars as required by Order 53 r 3, and because an effective statutory alternative remedy existed under the Lands Tribunal Ordinance (Cap 17), rendering judicial review inappropriate.
24 Mar 2026
The leave application was dismissed because the applicant failed to specify the relief and public law grounds on Form 86 as required by Order 53 r3, failed to make full and frank disclosure in an ex parte application, and there was an effective statutory alternative remedy under the Small Claims Tribunal regime, rendering judicial review inappropriate.
5 Feb 2025
Leave to apply for judicial review refused because an adequate alternative remedy existed in the form of a statutory appeal under section 113 of the Magistrates Ordinance (no exceptional circumstances justified departure), and because the intended grounds lacked any reasonably arguable public law error with a realistic prospect of success.
28 Mar 2024
The application for leave to apply for judicial review was dismissed because there was an available and more appropriate alternative remedy in private civil proceedings for the Applicant's compensatory claims, and there was no reasonably arguable public law ground of review with a realistic prospect of success (the alleged regulatory offences under the SFO did not plainly apply and no discrete reviewable decision by the SFC had been identified).
31 Aug 2023
The application for judicial review was dismissed because the decision challenged was either not amenable to judicial review (the police's application for forfeiture was an interlocutory/intermediary act) or, in respect of the Forfeiture Order, the applicant had an adequate statutory remedy by way of appeal under ss113-114 of the Magistrates Ordinance which he had not pursued; therefore judicial review was not available.
8 Jan 2019
Leave to apply for judicial review and the application to amend were dismissed because the principal relief had been achieved (making the issue academic), the proposed amendments introduced new grounds and reliefs that were time-barred and not justified by good reason for delay, and because an effective alternative remedy (a private law writ action for damages) was available, rendering judicial review inappropriate.
22 Aug 2018
Because the 2nd Interested Party opposed the Applicant's application for leave to discontinue (necessitating the hearing on 25 July 2018) and her opposition was not shown to be reasonably justified, the 2nd Interested Party must pay the Applicant's costs of that hearing and of the supplemental submissions dated 16 August 2018; otherwise costs are ordered as set out (Respondents to pay Applicant's costs save for the hearing, no order between Applicant and 1st Interested Party, and save for the hearing no order between Applicant and 2nd Interested Party).
4 Jan 2016
Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant lacked a sufficient interest to bring the challenge on the existing factual record, the proposed challenge was premature and not reasonably arguable in light of the ongoing Commission of Inquiry which provides an effective alternative forum for fact‑finding and recommendations, and the application was academic in part and based on an unclear factual foundation; amendment and adjournment requests were refused.
20 Aug 2012
Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because an adequate alternative remedy existed by way of appeal to the Municipal Services Appeals Board and the applicant failed to demonstrate exceptional circumstances; the court also held that the Appeal Board, under MSABO s7(1) and applying PCCW-HKT, has an implied discretionary power to grant an interim stay pending appeal, rendering the judicial review claim non-arguable.
1 Dec 2005
The Authority's application to set aside leave was dismissed: IGCO s.64(3) allows judicial review despite an appeal to the Chief Executive and IGCO s.64(4) confines the CE to an administrative role so the appeal is not an adequate or equivalent remedy to preclude judicial review; PCCW had an arguable case and leave should stand.