22 Dec 2025
The decision refusing to investigate was lawful because the Ombudsman lacked statutory power to investigate complaints about remuneration and conditions of service under s.8 and Schedule 2 of the Ombudsman Ordinance; accordingly the leave application had no realistic prospect of success and permission was refused.
11 Sept 2025
Permission to apply for judicial review was refused because (a) decisions of land administration relating to squatter huts are not justiciable as established by the Court of Appeal, (b) the application was time‑barred by the three‑month limit, (c) the applicant failed to demonstrate any substantive legal effect from deletion of the registration number, and (d) the grounds did not disclose any arguable case because deletion was an administrative follow‑up to lawful policy.
15 Jul 2025
The leave application sought review of a decision that did not exist at the time the application was filed and therefore there was no justiciable cause of action or reasonably arguable case; consequently leave must be dismissed and the Director's earlier decision is not subject to review once the Board appeal process has been invoked.
11 Jul 2025
Permission to apply for judicial review refused because the applicant failed to articulate any arguable grounds, relied on unsubstantiated serious allegations, many of the claimed remedies were non-justiciable or appropriate for other fora, and there was no basis to restrain the hospital or compel the respondents as sought; consequentially no relief granted and no order as to costs.
25 Apr 2025
The application for permission was refused because the applicant failed to identify any specific administrative decision amenable to judicial review, filed incoherent and disordered materials that did not disclose any arguable public‑law error by the proposed respondents, and sought relief not properly within the scope of judicial review; accordingly there was no real prospect of success.
12 Nov 2024
The application for permission was refused because the applicant failed to identify any judgment, order, decision or other legal proceeding, sought an impermissible abstract review of policy or law, and did not set out arguable grounds in Form 86; consequently the application was not reasonably arguable and permission must be denied.
25 Oct 2023
Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant's claim sought impermissible merits review and broad constitutional clarification (including the scope of 'patriots governing Hong Kong') that are non‑justiciable on judicial review principles, and the application had no real prospect of success.
4 Aug 2023
The application for leave was refused because the applicant failed to disclose clear, arguable public law grounds supported by objective evidence, sought remedies not available in public law and the claims were inherently unclear and non-justiciable; accordingly there was no real prospect of success under the test in Po Fun Chan v Winnie Cheung.
6 Mar 2023
The application was dismissed because the termination of the bank account was a private contractual/commercial decision by a private bank (invoking its General Conditions) and therefore not amenable to judicial review; the applicant produced no evidence of a public law or political motive, and he had adequate private law remedies and time to address the practical hardship.
16 Dec 2022
The Court of Appeal held that the core finding that plagiarism was established involved academic judgment and was not susceptible to court substitution; the Appeal Decision was quashed only insofar as the DC(Appeal)/RGC referred to and relied on the New Penalty Guidelines not in force at the relevant time, and the proper remedy was to quash the Appeal Decision on penalty and remit the penalty issue to the RGC for reconsideration; all other judicial review grounds were dismissed for lack of merit or prejudice.