2 Mar 2026
The appeal is dismissed because the applicant failed to identify any viable or particularised ground to reverse the judge's refusal of leave; bare assertions are insufficient and the Court will not re-examine the Board's decision absent demonstrable errors of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality.
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.
27 Oct 2025
The leave application was dismissed because the applicant failed to identify cogent grounds or make full disclosure; the Board applied the law correctly and made credibility and factual findings that were not shown to involve any error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality, so the intended judicial review was not reasonably arguable.
23 Aug 2023
Leave to apply for judicial review was dismissed because the applicant failed to present reasonably arguable and particularised grounds of legal error; the Board's adverse credibility finding was supported by detailed reasons following oral evidence and there was no identified error of law or procedural unfairness; the Director's and Board's assessment that any risk was localized and internal relocation was reasonable was lawful; additionally the applicant indicated he could return to India, eliminating prospects of success.
3 Nov 2022
Leave was refused because the application was impermissibly broad and unparticularised and the legal grounds advanced were not reasonably arguable: no evidence challenged the CEIC's requisite belief under s8(1), the duty to review under s8(2) does not compel automatic revocation, and the purported irrationality ground lacked factual and legal foundation; therefore the leave application failed on both justiciability and merits grounds.
18 Jan 2019
Leave to appeal was refused because the applicant's grounds were case- and fact-specific, lacked any arguable point of law of great general or public importance under s22(1)(b) Cap 484, and had been considered and rejected by the court such that the statutory criteria for granting leave were not met.
28 Sept 2012
Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because there was no reasonably arguable ground that the one year continuous residence requirement for Disability Allowance was manifestly without reasonable foundation; the Legislative Council Brief cannot be treated as statute or conclusive rationale, the rule has a long history since 1973 and pursues the legitimate aim of protecting public funds, and comparative or more liberal schemes do not establish irrationality.