11 Dec 2025
The appeal is dismissed because the applicant failed to identify with specific particulars any error in the judge’s refusal of leave; her challenges were general attacks on the Board’s factual findings and did not demonstrate any error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality warranting judicial review.
11 Dec 2025
The appeal was dismissed because the applicant failed to identify specific errors in the judge's refusal of leave; her grounds were general, bare and lacking particulars or evidence, and therefore did not constitute viable grounds to reverse the Leave Decision; the Court will not re-examine the merits of the Board's decision on appeal.
7 Jun 2021
The Court refused leave to appeal because the applicant failed to identify any error of law, any arguable point, or any question of great general or public importance under section 22(1)(b) of the Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, and therefore there was no prospect of success; accordingly leave was refused and the Notice of Motion dismissed.
6 Jun 2019
Extension of time to appeal was refused because the applicant was out of time and failed to set out grounds or to demonstrate reasonable prospect of success in the intended appeal; applying the established four-factor test, there was no basis to extend time.
13 Dec 2018
Extension of time refused because applicant failed to apply promptly or file a supporting affirmation explaining delay, was responsible for providing inaccurate addresses and thus missed notification, and the underlying judicial review claim lacked merit so that granting an extension would not be in the interests of justice.
10 Oct 2017
The applicant’s proposed question was not a proper, sufficiently specific question of law for a case stated; on the merits the Board’s factual findings supported that the overburden removal costs were capital expenditure conferring lasting infrastructural benefit and staged removal for practical reasons did not convert them into revenue expenditure; accordingly the application to compel a case stated was dismissed as plainly and obviously unarguable.