31 Jul 2025
Extension of time to appeal was refused because the applicant's delay was inordinate and unexplained, the intended appeal had no realistic prospect of success as no specific arguable errors were identified and the Judge and Board had applied correct legal standards with no procedural unfairness or irrationality.
30 Apr 2024
Extension of time to appeal was refused because the applicant's delay was substantial (inordinate, over five years), he offered no good or valid explanation or supporting evidence for the delay (including unsupported mental health claims), he failed to identify any error of law or arguable ground of appeal against the Board's and Director's decisions, and the new complaint about lack of legal/language assistance was raised late without explanation and carried no prospect of success.
12 Jul 2023
The notice of motion was dismissed because the applicant provided no justification for more than a year of delay and the proposed appeal had no reasonable prospect of success; consequently the statutory criteria under s22(1)(b) were not satisfied.
11 May 2022
Delay of more than one year was inordinate; applicant gave only an uncorroborated assertion of non-receipt, failed to provide proposed grounds or particulars of error and did not attend the summons hearing, so there was no prospect of success and the court refused to extend time and dismissed the summons.
23 May 2019
The applicant's delay was inordinate and inexcusable, he failed to provide any satisfactory explanation for the delay or any particularised, reasonably arguable grounds of appeal; the Board and Director's decisions showed no legal error or procedural unfairness and met required standards of fairness; therefore extension of time and leave to appeal are refused and the summons dismissed.
19 Mar 2019
Leave to appeal against sentence was refused because the offending was objectively more serious than ordinary money‑laundering cases given the large sum (HK$7,000,000), frequency of transactions (39), receipt of payment and the applicant's expressed doubts about the funds' source; the three‑year investigation was not inordinate or prosecution‑caused; claimed medical effects lacked documentary support; and agreement with most prosecution facts did not compel mitigation.
27 Nov 2007
The defendants failed to establish a material change of circumstances or that the plaintiffs' conduct amounted to inordinate and inexcusable delay or abuse of process; on balance the defendants had been at least as dilatory as the plaintiffs and there was insufficient evidence of contumelious conduct or an intention not to prosecute; accordingly the applications to discharge the injunction and to strike out were dismissed.
1 Sept 1999
The court found that although there were periods of inordinate delay by the plaintiff, much of the delay was caused or contributed to by the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Defendants (including failures in discovery and destruction of documents) and those defendants suffered little or self-inflicted prejudice; accordingly the strike-out applications by the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Defendants were dismissed. By contrast the delay caused serious and irretrievable prejudice to the 4th and 5th Defendants (medical practitioners) such that a fair trial was unlikely; accordingly the claim was struck out as against the 4t…
29 Apr 1997
Defendants' strike out applications dismissed because there was no culpable post-limitation delay to permit reliance on post-writ pre-limitation delay; overall delay was not shown to be inordinate or inexcusable and no causal prejudice to a fair trial was established; the undue influence defence was inadequately pleaded and thus not an arguable defence that would make trial unfair.