27 Mar 2024
The application for leave to appeal was dismissed because the applicant failed to show that the intended appeal raised a question of great general or public importance under section 22(1)(b) Cap 484 and failed to show any prospects of success; there was no need for an oral hearing under Practice Direction 2.1.
2 Mar 2023
The Court refused to extend time and denied leave because the applicant was more than three months late without providing reasons for the delay, the intended appeal lacked merit and did not raise any issue of great general or public importance under s22(1)(b) HKCFAO, and no basis was shown to exercise the discretion in his favor.
30 Jun 2022
The court refused leave to appeal because the applicant failed to meet the statutory criteria in s.22(1)(b): she did not raise any issue of great, general or public importance and did not show any basis to grant leave under the alternative limb, therefore the notice of motion was dismissed.
2 Aug 2019
The court refused to accept the late filing and refused leave because the applicant failed to show a reasonable excuse for the delay (including that legal aid delay was insufficient), and the proposed appeal did not raise matters of broad public importance or reasonably arguable points under the relevant provisions; the application could be fairly disposed of on the papers, so leave to appeal was refused and no costs order made.
23 Aug 2018
申請人未能就《香港終審法院條例》第22(1)(b)條的標準提出任何顯示案件涉及重大、廣泛或關乎公眾的重要性或其他足以交由終審法院裁決的理由，故上訴許可不得給予；並因申請被駁回而命令申請人向被告人支付港幣3,200元訟費。
19 Aug 2016
The Appeal Committee granted leave to appeal, certifying two questions of great general or public importance — whether s63B of Cap 336 is inconsistent with Article 82 of the Basic Law and whether the Court of Final Appeal has jurisdiction to entertain an appeal from a Court of Appeal judgment refusing leave — thereby permitting the substantive appeal to proceed to the Court of Final Appeal.
29 May 2012
The Court granted leave to appeal on the question certified by the Court of Appeal and certified the other seven questions, and also granted leave to appeal on those seven questions, thereby permitting appeals to proceed on the certified legal issues.
13 May 2010
The Court exercised its discretion to grant an extension of time to apply for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal because of the Appeal Committee's directions and the special procedural circumstances, but refused leave to appeal on the merits; the absence of an intermediate appeal to the Court of Appeal does not, of itself, contravene Basic Law Article 82 and whether the Court of Final Appeal will entertain an appeal via the Appeal Committee is a matter for that Committee to decide.
30 Jun 2006
Leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal was refused because the applicants did not raise any constitutional challenge, and as established by authority no appeal lies from a refusal of leave by the Court of Appeal absent such a challenge.
5 Jan 2001
The application for leave was dismissed because the appeal disclosed no grounds of substance and the claim disclosed no cause of action; consequently there was no realistic prospect of success and no reason to transmit the question to the Court of Final Appeal, and the applicant must bear the costs.