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.
23 Aug 2021
The court dismissed the judicial review: on the facts a fair‑minded informed observer would not apprehend a real possibility of bias; the Institute's factual findings were supported by evidence and within its professional judgment; and the decision to exclude CSPP PsyD holders from direct registration under the Long Term Arrangement was not Wednesbury unreasonable given the accreditation process, consultation and legitimate distinctions drawn between types of accreditation and supervision models.
13 Jun 2006
The OZP is a guide only under s.13 TPO and does not automatically remove the Commissioner’s discretion under AGCO s.5(4)(b)(ii); the AGC Appeal Board’s unvacated order stands and the Commissioner erred in law by refusing to issue the licence on planning grounds discovered after the Appeal Board decision; absent exceptional circumstances (eg fraud) a statutory tribunal’s decision cannot be reopened by after‑thoughts of a public officer; mandamus is appropriate to compel compliance with the Appeal Board order.
24 Jan 2006
Applicant's marriage had terminated and she ceased to be dependent before accruing any entitlement to unconditional stay; Director lawfully exercised his wide discretion based on evidence (doubts about genuineness of marriage, applicant's Vietnamese family links, sponsor ineligibility) and any failure to inform or to state all adverse reasons did not cause real prejudice and did not render the decision unlawful.
15 Jun 2005
The court dismissed the application because (1) additional documentary evidence justified the AT's reversal to find guilt and the applicant had pleaded guilty to the charges; (2) the FDO had read and considered mitigation within the defaulter file so there was no illegality in confirming punishments; (3) M.6 was an administrative covering minute, not a staffing note, and non-disclosure produced no substantial prejudice; and (4) the DCP(Man)'s factual observations were within reasonable bounds and did not amount to material error warranting intervention, therefore no ground for judicial review…
8 Feb 1996
The appeal was allowed because the magistrate made a demonstrable factual error by attributing to the appellant a claim she never made about being too tired and not listening, thereby undermining the credibility assessment and the admissibility/factual basis supporting the conviction.
29 May 1992
The Court held that the disputed question of family support was not an objective fact independently ascertainable or plainly or unassailably wrong; therefore the Deputy Director's factual assessment was not amenable to judicial review on the material error of fact principle in this case. Consequently the judge was right to refuse discovery and to refuse admission of further evidence, but wrong to order cross-examination of the Deputy Director. The Director's appeal is allowed and the applicants' appeal dismissed; courts must not convert judicial review into an appellate re-evaluation of admin…