7 May 2026
The appeal fails because the applicant presented only bare allegations without particulars and identified no error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the judge's refusal of leave; therefore there is no viable ground to disturb the judge's order refusing leave to apply for judicial review.
20 Apr 2026
The TCAB lawfully applied the correct legal principles under the Unified Screening Mechanism, gave proper consideration to the evidence, and made permissible credibility findings; no error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality was demonstrated and therefore the applicant failed to show a reasonably arguable case warranting leave for judicial review.
14 Apr 2026
The High Court refused permission to appeal because the appellant's grounds were not arguable as questions of law: the contested matters were primarily factual credibility and mitigation assessments properly within the Tribunal's remit; there was no evidence of perjury, no binding undertaking limiting liability as alleged, and the adjudicator acted within lawful inquisitorial powers, so no legal error meriting leave was shown.
10 Apr 2026
The application for leave to apply for judicial review was dismissed because the Applicant failed to identify any reasonably arguable ground with a realistic prospect of success: she had remained in Hong Kong without permission since 13 August 2025; the Director was entitled to refuse deferral and was under no duty to take humanitarian factors into account; there was no arguable illegality, irrationality, procedural impropriety, disproportionate interference or discrimination; and the matter was arguable as time‑barred or moot.
10 Apr 2026
Leave was refused because the Applicant failed to identify any arguable ground of illegality, irrationality or procedural impropriety and the Board's adverse credibility findings were reasonable and within the range of permitted conclusions.
8 Apr 2026
Form 86 was amended to name the Board as putative respondent and the Director as putative interested party; the application for leave was dismissed because the applicant failed to plead any reasonable ground of judicial review and the Board's decision showed no illegality, irrationality or procedural impropriety after anxious scrutiny of credibility and delay issues.
8 Apr 2026
Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to advance any reasonable arguable ground of illegality, irrationality or procedural impropriety; the Board had conducted anxious scrutiny of factual issues, found no reliable evidence of a real risk of harm or requisite severity and reasonably assessed availability of state protection, thus its decision was lawful and rational.
31 Mar 2026
Leave to appeal refused because the court below’s case management and committal decisions had no reasonable prospect of being overturned: the judge had considered but permissibly rejected the medical evidence and reasonably concluded adjournment would be an abuse/delay; the finding that H breached the 8/11/22 order was supported by undisputed chronology and belated compliance; indemnity costs were within judicial discretion given the late purging of contempt; WhatsApp material was rightly expunged as confidential and irrelevant; and the newly pleaded bias ground was speculative and inadmissib…
30 Mar 2026
Leave was dismissed because the Applicant's grounds were bare, vague and lacked particulars and did not identify any arguable legal error, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Director's and Board's decisions; the Board's findings on low localized risk, availability of state protection and reasonable internal relocation were rational and supported by evidence and credibility findings; consequently there was no prospect of success (and the Applicant subsequently confirmed issues resolved).
25 Mar 2026
The court held the BA's refusal to grant a stay was not a fresh exercise of a statutory discretion appealable under section 44 of the Building Ordinance because it merely sought enforcement of an extant, unappealed demolition order; accordingly the BAT lacked jurisdiction to entertain the challenged appeal and the applicant's grounds of jurisdictional error, procedural impropriety and unreasonableness failed and the judicial review was dismissed.