24 Sept 2021
The applicant failed to provide a reasonable explanation for his delay and failed to identify any question of great general or public importance or any reasonably arguable ground; accordingly leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal out of time is refused and the Notice of Motion is dismissed.
14 Aug 2017
The appeal was refused because the applicant offered no sufficient justification for filing four months late and, on the merits, the trial judge properly found on the evidence that the US$4,067 was possessed to facilitate the applicant's entry and subsistence for drug trafficking and was therefore forfeitable under s56(1)(a); the judge's credibility findings and sentencing arithmetic were within lawful discretion.
27 May 2016
The Court granted leave to make the certification application out of time because of the applicant's psychiatric condition but refused to certify any point of law of great and general importance arising from its decision: the medication issue was factual and addressed in the earlier judgment, and the other matters raised did not raise legal issues of great and general importance; the Court proceeded on the basis (arguendo) that it was not functus officio but found no certifiable points.
1 Jun 2007
Leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal out of time was refused because the applicant failed to provide an adequate explanation for the delay and failed to identify any arguable point of law under section 32A of the Companies Ordinance; additionally, the primary issues were factual and concurrent findings of fact had been upheld, undermining prospects of a successful appeal.