19 Mar 2026
The court granted the withdrawal because the applicant filed a statement establishing that the withdrawal was voluntary, that she understood the consequences including possible refoulement and the finality of the Board's decision, and therefore the withdrawal was valid.
12 Sept 2025
The court was satisfied by the applicant's sworn statement that the withdrawal was made freely and with understanding of its consequences, including possible refoulement and finality of the Board's decision; accordingly the court granted the application to withdraw and allowed the leave application to be withdrawn.
30 Apr 2024
The court upheld the registrar's order setting aside the default judgment because on a provisional assessment at rehearing the first defendant produced cogent documentary evidence (notably a rent receipt signed by Ng Wai Hung, matching a registered owner's name) which gives the defence a realistic prospect of success; the plaintiff's attacks on the evidential weight of the documents did not justify refusing relief at this interlocutory stage. Accordingly the plaintiff's appeal was dismissed and the registrar's order maintained, with a provisional costs order in favour of the first defendant.
19 Jun 2023
The application for a certificate was dismissed because the Questions sought to be certified raised new points of law that had not been previously argued and thus were unsuitable for certification, and because the appeals had become academic as the substantive disputes had ceased; consequently it was unnecessary and futile to extend time for a late application.
28 Oct 2005
The applications for discovery were dismissed because the applicant failed to meet the higher test for discovery in judicial review: there was no showing that the respondent's affidavit was misleading or materially incomplete or that evidence existed to establish a breach of duty; the applicant sought discovery to probe deliberations and to improve arguments (a fishing expedition), which is impermissible.
17 Nov 1993
The court extended detention of the 19 respondents until 26 November 1993 because continuation of the earlier reasons for detention remained valid to secure their attendance to give evidence; the extension was limited to allow the proposed alternative argument to be developed and to give the Attorney General an opportunity to apply for further extension with additional evidence.
17 Nov 1993
The court granted a limited renewal of detention because the original reasons for detention remained valid and there was a reasonable prospect the respondents would give evidence in the near future; however, the renewal was limited to 26 November 1993 to permit fuller argument on proposed alternatives and to require the Attorney General to file further evidence before any further extension.