29 Apr 2026
Extension of time refused because the applicant offered no explanation for the 19‑day delay and the intended appeal had no realistic prospect of success given the Board's finding that the non‑refoulement claim was unsubstantiated; accordingly the application for extension and the appeal were dismissed.
24 Apr 2026
The delay was short but the applicant failed to identify any grounds of appeal or demonstrate a reasonable prospect of success; language difficulties and non-receipt of the decision letter did not establish sufficient justification for extension. Accordingly, extension of time was refused and the application dismissed.
1 Apr 2026
The applications were dismissed because the leave application was procedurally defective and failed the substantive merit threshold for an arguable appeal, the Claimant did not adduce adequate evidence of serious deleterious effect to justify a stay or variation of the costs order, the Respondent's submissions were not out of time and any prejudice was minimal, and costs were properly summarily assessed and ordered against the Claimant on a nisi basis.
30 Jan 2026
Applicant's delay (about one month) lacked a satisfactory explanation and, critically, the intended appeal had no realistic prospect of success because no arguable errors of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality were identified in the Board's or Court's decisions; accordingly the court refused to extend time and dismissed the application.
5 Sept 2025
Extension of time was refused and leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the application was filed more than four months late without adequate explanation, the proposed challenge had no realistic prospect of success given the Board's supported findings that state protection and internal relocation were viable and the applicant's evidence was inconsistent and incredible, and there was no legal error or procedural unfairness warranting intervention.
6 Aug 2025
Leave was refused and the leave application dismissed because the applicant failed to identify the decision complained of (no decision dated 22 August 2020), failed to state grounds, the Director's decision relied on was superseded by a later Board decision, and the claim had no realistic prospect of success particularly after the applicant confirmed she considered it safe to return to Vietnam.
12 Sept 2024
The 3rd defendant failed to discharge the high burden of proving exclusive factual possession and animus possidendi for the requisite limitation period; his claim to title by adverse possession is dismissed and judgment for the plaintiffs for vacant possession, demolition/removal, injunction, nominal mesne profits and costs was granted.
19 Jan 2024
Extension of time refused because the applicant was about 18 days late, offered unsatisfactory and belated reasons not previously raised, failed to identify any error of law or procedural unfairness, and the intended appeal had no realistic prospect of success, making an extension futile.
19 Jun 2023
The court refused to extend time and dismissed the leave application because the delay of over three years was inordinate with no satisfactory explanation, the intended grounds lacked arguable merit, and the applicant's deportation invoked the statutory bar in s37ZF(3); on these bases there was no prospect of success and no justification to re-open the withdrawn non-refoulement claim under s37ZE(2).
2 Mar 2023
The Notice of Motion for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal was dismissed because the intended appeal had no merit and did not raise any question of great general or public importance under section 22(1)(b) HKCFAO, and there was no basis to grant leave under the "or otherwise" limb; negligible procedural delay was immaterial.