7 May 2026
The appeal was dismissed because the judge had granted the leave sought and given procedural directions to commence proceedings, leaving no appealable order; accordingly the appeal was wholly misconceived and lacked merit.
22 Apr 2026
The summons for extension of time was dismissed because the applicant failed to provide any satisfactory explanation for the delay and failed to show any reasonable prospect of success in the intended judicial review, such that an extension of time ought not to be granted for a hopeless appeal.
27 Feb 2026
Extension of time was refused because the applicant failed to identify any error of law or any reasonably arguable public law ground that would make the proposed appeal not hopeless; a minimal delay does not justify extension where the merits are lacking and the Leave Decision was properly reached applying enhanced Wednesbury scrutiny.
2 Feb 2026
The statutory wording of s20(1) Housing Ordinance confines the right to appeal to the tenant or an authorised occupier; the applicant was neither, so she lacked the statutory right to appeal. The lower court's refusal was correct; appeal dismissed and costs awarded.
30 Jan 2026
Short delay notwithstanding, the applicant provided no grounds and the Court correctly found no realistic prospect of success in challenging the Board Decision which was reasoned and free of error; therefore there is no basis to extend time and the application to extend is refused.
5 Dec 2025
The applicant failed to identify any question of great general or public importance and advanced only vague, unsupported and fact‑specific allegations including unproven non‑receipt of notice; the Court therefore had no basis under s22(1)(b) HKCFAO to grant leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal and dismissed the Notice of Motion.
24 Jul 2025
Because the delay exceeded six months and was inordinate, the applicant offered no corroborating explanation, failed to provide draft grounds or identify errors in the decision, and failed to attend the hearing, there was no reasonable prospect of success and no justification to extend time; therefore leave to appeal out of time was refused and the summons dismissed.
2 Jul 2025
The application for leave to apply for judicial review is refused because the applicant impermissibly sought to re‑open matters properly dealt with by the appeal process and failed to show illegality, irrationality or procedural unfairness; the claims lacked reasonable arguability and realistic prospects of success, and the Labour Tribunal Ordinance and authority preclude judicial review of the High Court's refusal of leave.
2 May 2025
Order 45 rule 11 did not apply because no matter occurring after the judgment was relied upon; under Order 59 rule 13 Father failed to demonstrate even an arguable appeal on the pleaded grounds (which were primarily factual challenges to findings that the transactions were for Father's benefit and entered into freely), and therefore there was no basis to exercise the court's discretion to stay execution; the summonses were dismissed and costs ordered against Father.
26 Nov 2024
Short delay notwithstanding, extension of time was refused because the intended judicial review lacked a realistic prospect of success: the Board had given detailed, reasoned adverse credibility findings, the applicant identified no legal error or procedural unfairness, and the court will not substitute its merits assessment for the Board absent legal error.