12 Feb 2026
Permission was refused because the applicant's challenge attacked the tribunal's factual and credibility findings concerning his arrival date—a pure factual issue—and he failed to show an arguable case with a real prospect of success required for judicial review permission.
29 Jan 2026
The court refused permission because the Director correctly identified and applied the law (s37ZO), made lawful and binding factual and credibility findings from the prior claim, and the applicant failed to show any arguable legal error, procedural unfairness or Wednesbury-level unreasonableness in the refusal; accordingly there was no real prospect of success on judicial review and permission was refused.
19 Sept 2025
Extension of time to appeal denied because delay was minimal but applicants failed to demonstrate any arguable legal error or real prospect of success; the original judge correctly concluded the Appeal Board’s factual and legal determinations were within its jurisdiction, lawful and not Wednesbury‑unreasonable; children’s claims were considered individually by the Appeal Board and by the judge, so no public law ground for intervention existed; permitting out‑of‑time appeals would be futile.
2 Jul 2025
The application for permission was refused because the applicant failed to identify any substantive or final decisions by the respondents; the communications relied on were mere administrative acknowledgements, referrals or invitations for information and therefore not amenable to judicial review, and the applicant did not demonstrate any arguable illegality, irrationality or procedural unfairness.
17 Jun 2025
Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant lacked standing as she was neither the tenant nor an authorised occupier under the lease, the Appeal Board lawfully applied s20(1) of the Housing Ordinance in refusing to accept her appeal, and there was no arguable case for judicial review.
8 Jul 2024
The applicant's Form 86 failed to comply with the mandatory requirement in Order 53 r.3(2)(a)(iii) to state the relief sought and the reasons for it; that failure alone justified refusal of permission to apply for judicial review (following Lau Kong Yung).
13 Oct 2023
The applicant failed to demonstrate an adequate explanation for any delay and failed to show that the proposed appeal raises a question of great and general or public importance under s22(1)(b) Cap.484 or any other reason to justify referral to the Court of Final Appeal; therefore leave to appeal was refused and the notice of motion struck out.
20 Jun 2023
The applicant delayed over five months without adequate explanation and failed to demonstrate substantive prospects of success or to identify errors in the original judge's refusal of leave; therefore the court refused to extend the time to appeal and dismissed the extension application.
2 Sept 2022
The application for permission was refused because the proposed grounds were not arguable: no clear promise giving rise to legitimate expectation, the appeal tribunal gave adequate reasons and considered relevant factors, and the challenge amounted to an impermissible merits appeal rather than a justiciable error of law.
28 Jun 2022
Permission to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to comply with Order 53 rule 3(2)(a) by not specifying the relief sought or the reasons for relief in Form 86 or the supporting affidavit, and no arguable grounds were demonstrated to meet the threshold for leave.