10 Nov 2023
Leave to appeal was refused because the applicant failed to identify any arguable question of law; the impugned decision rested on factual credibility assessments supported by evidence and logic, which are not susceptible to appellate interference absent legal error.
30 Jan 2023
Leave to appeal refused because the applicant did not demonstrate that the tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction or made an error of law under s28(1) Cap.338, merely re‑argued facts without identifying omitted or irrelevant evidence or providing particulars of the alleged leading of the respondent; therefore the statutory threshold for leave was not met.
7 Mar 2000
Because s.119(1) of the Copyright Ordinance Cap.528 omits the words 'on indictment', offences under s.118(1) are summary only; a magistrate had no power to transfer those summary offences alone to the District Court under the Magistrates Ordinance, so the transfers were null and the District Court proceedings were a nullity; consequently leave out of time was granted and the convictions in CACC 38/2000 and CACC 67/2000 were quashed; the application in CACC 106/1999 was dismissed as misconceived.
2 Sept 1994
The court held that the statutory scheme and Regulation 9(7) confined challenges to nomination validity to the election petition procedure; Regulation 9(7) was intra vires and the availability of election petitions provided an adequate and expeditious remedy consistent with fair hearing requirements, therefore the applicants' motions for judicial review were dismissed.
11 Dec 1989
Section 19(3) of the Housing Ordinance does not oust the court's ordinary supervisory jurisdiction; where a decision to terminate a tenancy is tainted by a jurisdictional error (such as reliance on an irrelevant consideration) it is susceptible to judicial review and may be nullified despite statutory finality language.
12 May 1989
The fine of $30,000 exceeded the statutory maximum of $20,000 and was therefore unauthorised; the Court varied that part of the sentence to the statutory maximum of $20,000 and left the imprisonment term unchanged.
3 Nov 1987
Regulation 11 expressly made the Chairman's exercise of discretion and the Tribunal's decisions on questions of law and fact final; the Chairman did not exceed jurisdiction in holding para 3(a)(v) intra vires, therefore his decision was not amenable to certiorari and the judicial review application must be dismissed.
31 Jul 1976
The court held that although it may go behind a non‑speaking record where jurisdictional error or bias is alleged, the material before it did not establish that the Commissioner acted on an irrelevant consideration or in bad faith; mere silence or prior adverse finding without further indicia of deliberate misconduct did not justify quashing the refusal or ordering mandamus, therefore the applications were refused.