15 Apr 2026
The applicant failed to identify or substantiate any error in the Judge's refusal to grant leave; the grounds were bare allegations without particulars and therefore no viable basis existed to overturn the refusal of leave; appeal dismissed.
19 Mar 2026
Delay of about one and a half months was inexcusable; interpreter services had been provided at hearings and documents were in English; applicant had prior legal representation; therefore applicant failed to show a real prospect of success and extension of time to appeal was refused applying the standard multi-factor test for extensions.
6 Mar 2026
Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to identify arguable grounds in Form 86, withdrew the allegation of lack of legal representation, failed to establish the interpreter allegation on the record, and could not show any public law error, illegality or irrationality in the Board's factual findings on credibility and internal relocation; consequently the intended challenge was not reasonably arguable with realistic prospects of success.
4 Feb 2026
Extension of time refused because applicant was late without adequate explanation (delay inexcusable), he failed to show any real prospect of success on the merits of the intended judicial review, interpreter and prior legal assistance were available and there was no demonstrated procedural unfairness sufficient to undermine the Board's findings; accordingly the balance of relevant factors did not justify extending time.
16 Sept 2025
Applying the AW factors, the court refused an extension because the delay was substantial and unexplained, the applicant had no credible basis to challenge the Board's adverse findings or the Judgment, service was properly effected and deemed received, and the intended appeal lacked realistic prospect of success; therefore extension of time was refused and the application dismissed.
22 Feb 2024
The applicant validly withdrew his application for leave and, because there was nothing outstanding in the action, the proper course was to dismiss the leave application; the court also properly exercised its discretion to permit the applicant's friend to assist communication alongside the court interpreter in this non-adversarial proceeding.
12 Sept 2023
Leave to apply for judicial review was properly refused because the applicant advanced no arguable ground in his leave application, the Board's adverse credibility and factual findings were rational and not Wednesbury unreasonable, the claimed interpreter issue was a new, unparticularised ground not raised below, and the intended judicial review had no realistic prospect of success.
9 Aug 2023
The Notice of Motion for leave to appeal was dismissed because the applicant failed to identify any question of great general or public importance as required by section 22(1)(b) HKCFAO; her allegations were bare, vague and fact-specific and did not disclose arguable error in the judgment; her interpreter complaint lacked particulars and was not raised at the hearing, so it did not provide a basis for leave.
28 Jun 2022
Extension of time refused because, despite a short delay, the applicant failed to demonstrate any arguable appeal: credibility findings by the Board and affirmed by the Judge were not shown to be erroneous, procedural fairness complaints lacked merit given provision of interpreter and Duty Lawyer assistance, and established authority negated entitlement to free representation or continuous interpretation.
6 May 2022
Hoang: the judge's remarks about absence of fingerprints were appropriate in the factual context and did not amount to a material misdirection. Manan: the trial judge erred by directing the jury that the absence of fingerprints "proves nothing one way or the other" in circumstances where the absence was a central, contested, and relevant fact relied upon by the defence; that direction amounted to usurpation of the jury's fact-finding role, so Manan's conviction was unsafe and was quashed; grounds on good character and interpreter assistance failed on the facts; retrial ordered and proviso ref…