12 May 2026
The appeal is dismissed because the applicant failed to demonstrate any reasonably arguable public law error in the Board's factual findings that there was no real risk upon refoulement and that adequate state protection was available, and failed to show any error in the judge's refusal of leave to apply for judicial review.
29 Apr 2026
Leave to appeal granted only on Ground 10 (foreseeability/remoteness of loss of rental income) because that ground has a reasonable prospect of success; all other grounds were refused because the judge found they lacked reasonable prospects, were covered by pleadings or supported by evidence and expert findings, or involved factual conclusions not plainly wrong.
1 Apr 2026
The appeal fails because the applicant offered only bare assertions and did not identify any legal error in the judge's refusal of leave; the judge correctly dismissed the out-of-time application for unexplained delay and properly concluded the intended judicial review had no realistic prospect of success given the Board's and Director's credibility findings and absence of material error.
27 Feb 2026
Leave to appeal was refused because the intended appeal did not have a reasonable prospect of success: the trial judge’s conclusion on the Property was supported by overwhelming documentary evidence (including a loan agreement, Document 1 and Lau’s messages) establishing Choi as sole beneficial owner and therefore the outcome would not change even if credibility findings about Lau and Amy were disturbed; procedural and evidential rulings challenged were within judicial discretion and did not produce a viable appeal point.
13 Feb 2026
Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to identify any arguable error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board's decision which had lawfully found her non-refoulement claim unsubstantiated and that internal relocation was viable; she therefore had no realistic prospect of success.
5 Jan 2026
The appeal was dismissed because the applicant failed to show good reason to extend time under Order 53 r4(1) and the proposed judicial review had no reasonable prospect of success; absent error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality the Court will not disturb the Board's factual and COI assessments.
24 Dec 2025
The application for leave was dismissed because the applicant failed to show good reason to extend time after an 18‑month delay, failed to identify reasonably arguable grounds in the Form 86, and the prejudice to public administration and the putative respondent outweighed any claim to relief even where arguable issues on the merits existed; accordingly leave was refused and the Form 86 amended to correctly identify parties.
26 Aug 2025
The murder conviction was quashed due to a prosecutorial error affecting credibility, but because the case was not one of insufficient evidence and prejudice from publication, appellant testimony or delay can be mitigated by trial judge measures, the interests of justice require a retrial on a fresh indictment rather than substitution of a manslaughter verdict.
21 Jul 2025
The claim is dismissed because the plaintiff failed to prove the Accident as pleaded and was an unreliable witness; the defendant's expert evidence that the plaintiff suffered only a minor soft tissue injury and had pre-existing degenerative cervical disease which was not caused or materially aggravated by the alleged Accident was preferred; consequentially no liability for the claimed damages arose and the claim fails.
27 Jun 2024
On rehearing the court found the trial judge properly assessed the evidence and credibility: the CCTV footage, although not showing the precise assault moment, materially accorded with the complainant's account; the trial judge reasonably rejected the appellant's account as inconsistent with the footage and circumstances; there was no credible evidence of fabrication; the prosecution proved common assault beyond reasonable doubt; appeal dismissed.