13 Oct 2022
Delay was minimal but the intended appeal had no realistic prospect of success because the applicant failed to show any error in the Board's assessment; the Board reasonably found the claim unsubstantiated, treated it as a private monetary dispute, and noted availability of police protection; therefore extension of time to appeal was refused and the application dismissed.
17 Oct 2019
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed because the applicant failed to identify any question of great general or public importance under section 22(1)(b), raised new factual/legal points at a late stage that were not argued below, and the merits of the claim are for the Director and the Board; therefore the statutory requirements for leave are not met.
29 Nov 2018
Because the same application had previously been refused and the applicant did not appeal within the 14‑day period or seek an extension, the court had no locus to rehear the application and leave was refused.
19 Nov 2013
The Court refused leave because the applicant failed to show any error in the Master's taxation or in the judge's refusal to review and thus failed to demonstrate a reasonable prospect of success or other reason to permit an appeal; accordingly leave to appeal was refused and a bar on re‑application under HCR Order 59(2A)(8) was imposed.
29 Sept 2009
Leave to appeal was refused because the claim against Government Counsel disclosed no duty of care owed by a litigant and was, in any event, barred by section 4(5) of the Crown Proceedings Ordinance, rendering the application totally without merit.