30 Apr 2026
The applicant failed to identify any question of great general or public importance as required by s22(1)(b) HKCFAO and advanced only vague, unsupported and fact‑specific complaints (many not raised below) which do not demonstrate any error in this court's judgment; accordingly leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal was refused.
10 Mar 2026
Refusal to extend time and refusal of leave was justified because the application was filed approximately 1.5 months late with no explanation, the intended judicial review was not reasonably arguable with realistic prospects of success, and the Board's decision contained adequate reasons with no demonstrable error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality.
6 Mar 2026
The application for leave to appeal was dismissed because the statutory threshold in section 22(1)(b) was not satisfied (no question of great general or public importance); the applicant relied on new, fact‑sensitive grounds not previously argued; and the submissions were unsubstantial and unarguable, so leave could not be granted.
5 Mar 2026
The applicant was nearly one month late and failed to show good and sufficient reasons to extend time under s24(5) HKCFAO; his assertions were vague, unsupported and merely re-ran arguments already rejected, and the intended appeal did not raise any question of great general or public importance under s22(1)(b) HKCFAO; accordingly the application to seek leave out of time is dismissed.
20 Jan 2026
The application for leave to appeal was dismissed because the applicant failed to demonstrate that the intended appeal raised a question of great general or public importance under section 22(1)(b) of Cap 484 and failed to show any prospects of success; accordingly leave was refused.
18 Dec 2025
The Court refused leave because the applicant failed to identify any question of great general or public importance required by s22(1)(b) HKCFAO; his claims were vague, unsupported, fact-specific and amounted to a re-run of previously rejected arguments, providing no basis under the statutory 'or otherwise' limb for submitting the matter to the Court of Final Appeal.
2 Dec 2025
The application for leave to appeal was dismissed because the applicants did not identify any question of great general or public importance under s.22(1)(b), their submissions related only to personal circumstances and failed to show any error in the Court of Appeal's decision, and there was no alternative basis to grant leave.
14 Oct 2025
The Court dismissed the application for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal because the applicant failed to demonstrate that the intended appeal raised a question of great general or public importance under s22(1)(b) Cap 484 and failed to show any prospects of success; the application was properly decided on the papers under Practice Direction 2.1.
14 Oct 2025
Leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal was refused because the applicant failed to show that the intended appeal raised a question of great general or public importance under s22(1)(b) Cap 484 and failed to demonstrate any prospects of success; there was no need for an oral hearing as per Practice Direction 2.1.
13 Oct 2025
Leave to appeal was refused because the applicant failed to identify any question of great general or public importance or any error in the Court of Appeal judgment, the intended appeal had no reasonable prospect of success, and there was no basis to grant leave under the 'otherwise' limb of s 22(1)(b).