31 Mar 2022
Leave to appeal was refused because the applicant failed to demonstrate any legal error or excess of jurisdiction by the adjudicator; the grounds advanced attacked factual findings, and appellate intervention is not warranted where the issues are factual rather than legal.
1 Dec 2014
Leave to appeal was refused because the proposed grounds principally attacked the trial judge's findings of fact which do not meet the high threshold for appellate interference; the exclusion of the SMS was a correct case management exercise; the penalty argument was unpleaded and too late to raise on appeal; therefore the intended appeal had no reasonable prospect of success.
13 Jun 2013
The Tribunal held the applicant's grounds were factual disagreements rather than errors of law, there was no reasonable prospect of success on appeal and no special reasons to admit further evidence at the leave stage, and accordingly refused leave to appeal out of time.
18 Mar 2008
The application for leave to appeal was dismissed because no arguable point of law was identified and the adjudicator's findings of fact cannot be challenged on appeal.
30 Jun 2006
The judge concluded the defendants lacked a realistic prospect of success on appeal because the trial judge's factual findings (including identity of contracting party and the relevance of Nichimen's position) were supported by the evidence and not plainly wrong; quantum meruit recovery of HK$300,000 was available and the defendants' unclean hands argument did not defeat restitution; accordingly leave to appeal and stay were dismissed and interim security ordered paid to the plaintiff.
31 Oct 1995
Where performance of an employment contract is illegal enforcement depends on whether the employee was a party to or knew of the illegal performance; before applying the bar of illegality the tribunal must make specific findings on whether the employer directed the illegal performance and on the employee's knowledge; absent resolution of that issue the matter must be remitted for that limited factual determination.
2 Mar 1989
The appellate court found the trial judge's factual findings justified defendant negligence but that the trial judge under‑weighted the deceased's contributory negligence; on reassessment the deceased and defendant were each held 50% liable, and the appeal was allowed to vary the apportionment accordingly.
Because the defendant asserted a yearly tenancy and there was no evidence of a lease exceeding three years, s.3(2) of the Land Registration Ordinance was inapplicable; accordingly the trial judge must be asked to certify whether he in fact found a tenancy and its terms, and any decision based solely upon the Ordinance cannot stand.