28 Aug 2024
The court held the applicant's points related to case‑specific factual determinations and the application of established principles to his file, and did not raise any question of law of great and general importance nor demonstrate substantial and grave unfairness; therefore a certificate under s32(2) was not appropriate and the application was refused.
27 Jul 2020
Failure by the Small Claims adjudicator to consider the applicable legal principles concerning secondary victims was an error of law and a material error at the strike-out stage; the appeal is allowed, the adjudicator's decision is set aside and the removal/strike-out application is remitted to the Small Claims Tribunal for reconsideration by a different adjudicator. The applicant's recusal application was refused: refusal to grant an adjournment as a case-management decision does not establish actual or apparent bias.
2 Jun 2016
Extension of time refused because the intended appeal had no reasonable prospect of success: the Board lawfully exercised its statutory power to award costs for frivolous or vexatious conduct, its findings were not legally flawed or Wednesbury unreasonable, and there was no arguable bias warranting recusal of the chairman.
30 May 2012
No objective circumstances existed that would lead a fair‑minded and informed observer to conclude there was a real possibility of bias by Master T Chan; accordingly the recusal application failed, the Master’s order of 30 April 2012 stands and the appeal is dismissed with costs to the defendant on an indemnity basis.
3 Sept 2004
The court held the magistrate was entitled to prefer the prosecution evidence and convict; however the three month immediate custodial sentence was manifestly excessive and was reduced to six weeks imprisonment, endorsing that immediate custody could be justified but must be proportionate.
3 Mar 2004
The magistrate accepted the victim as an honest and convincing witness, found that the appellant made threatening calls amounting to menaces and an unwarranted demand within s.23 of the Theft Ordinance, and having considered the appellant's interview and good character (propensity), held there was no material unfairness or bias; therefore the conviction was safe and the appeal must be dismissed.
3 May 2002
The Medical Council was entitled and obliged under s.25(3) to consider all matters relating to the applicant's character and integrity including prior convictions; its absolute discretion, properly exercised and absent bad faith, perversity or failure to consider relevant matters, will not be interfered with on judicial review; given the simple and undisputed facts there was no legal duty to afford an oral hearing in this case; there was no real danger of bias and no legitimate expectation entitling the applicant to the relief sought; accordingly the application for judicial review was refuse…
12 Jan 2001
The Court held the appellant was professionally negligent because the financial statements breached the Companies Ordinance and applicable SSAPs (including improper application of s141D despite the company having subsidiaries and failure to comply with SSAP 13 on investment property valuation), the breaches were neither justified nor disclosed, a clerical or software error did not excuse the professional failings, there was no real danger of bias in the tribunal, and the Disciplinary Committee's penalty was not shown to be excessive; appeal dismissed.
15 Oct 1997
The statement of claim disclosed no reasonable cause of action and contained no credible basis for alleging bias or denial of opportunity; accordingly the Master's order striking out the claim was upheld and the appeal dismissed with costs.