11 May 2026
The Court dismissed the appeal because the applicant failed to identify any error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Judge's decision refusing leave; the assessment of COI and risk falls within the Board's province and there was no viable ground to overturn the refusal of leave.
9 May 2025
Leave to appeal was refused because the applicant failed to identify any question of great general or public importance under s22(1)(b) and failed to particularise any legal error or other compelling reason to engage the discretionary 'otherwise' limb.
18 Apr 2023
Dismissal of the leave application: applicant failed to comply with Form 86 requirements and did not identify any arguable public law ground; FSD's refusal to approve withdrawal of resignation was a discretionary employment decision taken in accordance with CSR321(b) and adequately explained, and the dispute is principally a private employment matter not amenable to judicial review.
2 Sept 2022
The application for permission was refused because the proposed grounds were not arguable: no clear promise giving rise to legitimate expectation, the appeal tribunal gave adequate reasons and considered relevant factors, and the challenge amounted to an impermissible merits appeal rather than a justiciable error of law.
14 Jun 2022
Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the application was made after undue delay without explanation and, on the merits, the proposed grounds were not reasonably arguable: the EOC had an evidential basis to discontinue the complaint under s80(4)(e) DDO and its reasons (in the Penultimate Letter) were sufficiently clear and fair; refusal to extend time did not breach natural justice or cause substantive prejudice.
17 Mar 2022
Court accepted the trustees' analysis based on the bankrupt's own second annual statement showing an annual surplus of approximately HK$40,000, and held that requiring HK$2,000 per month was not perverse or clearly wrong; therefore the s83 application was dismissed.
9 Sept 2021
Refusal of the extension of time because the applicant was nearly 3.5 months out of time without an adequate explanation, the intended judicial review lacked merit given the TCAB's and Deputy Judge Pang's reasonable conclusions, and there was no sufficient basis to justify extending time.
24 Jul 2020
The application for leave to appeal (and extension of time) was dismissed because the applicants failed to identify any error in the Court of First Instance's refusal of leave, and the intended appeal had no real prospect of success as the facts did not satisfy the statutory and Convention tests; under Re Adumekwe an extension will not be granted for a hopeless appeal.
21 Feb 2014
Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to demonstrate an arguable or reasonably arguable ground to impugn the coroner's jury verdict; the autopsy, contemporaneous documentary evidence and trial record provided adequate evidence to support a finding of suicide and the alleged investigative omissions and suspicions did not amount to a viable challenge.
10 Dec 2013
The court held that the statutory language and regulatory scheme support restricting licensed sale to consumption on the premises or that, even if permissive, the licensing bodies have statutory power to impose restrictive conditions; given the evidence of noise complaints and the public interest requirement, the Appeals Board was not unreasonable in imposing the "premises only" condition and the judicial review failed.