24 Jun 2022
The Court refused the applicant's one‑day out‑of‑time application for leave to appeal and declined to extend time because the delay was minimal but the proposed appeal did not raise issues of serious general or public importance under Cap 484 s22(1)(b) and the recusal/equality allegations lacked merit; accordingly the motion was dismissed and costs awarded to the respondent.
12 Nov 2021
The plaintiff is balance-sheet insolvent with negligible cash and significant contingent liabilities, there is no satisfactory evidence of sustainable third-party funding, and the appeal does not have a high chance of success sufficient to displace the normal rule; consequently security for costs of HK$900,000 was ordered, the appeal was stayed pending payment, default would result in dismissal and costs of the security application were awarded to defendants in the sum of HK$200,000.
7 Jun 2018
The Court dismissed the appeal: the Appeal Committee's summary dismissal under Rule 7 was lawful and justified on its face; the appellant's allegations of bias and improper procedure lacked objective factual foundation; claims against judicial officers for acts of adjudication are barred by Basic Law Article 85; the adjournment was properly refused because the appellant's medical evidence was inconsistent and did not justify non‑attendance.
11 Nov 2015
Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to show an arguable case that the AAB's costs order was unlawful: the AAB acted within its statutory jurisdiction, its factual findings that the applicant and his authorised representative conducted the appeal in a frivolous and vexatious manner were supported by the record and not Wednesbury unreasonable, and no sufficient evidence of bias or procedural irregularity was shown to justify review.
11 Jan 2012
Leave to appeal is refused in respect of the substantive findings on wages for the restricted period and underpayment because the Tribunal's credibility and fact findings were supported by evidence and not perverse; the employer's express contractual discretion to enforce the restrictive covenant was properly exercised and not irrational; documentary or regulatory reports (OGC Report, PCR) were irrelevant to the two core contract claims. Most procedural and recusal complaints were abusive or without merit. Limited leave to appeal is granted solely on discrete issues concerning the assessment…
22 Dec 2000
Quashing the Tribunal's findings by certiorari removed the decisions but did not erase the underlying public evidence; private submissions contaminated only the Tribunal's prior evaluation not the raw evidence; because parties accepted the Tribunal could fairly reassess the evidence and did not seek recusal, the Tribunal lawfully refused to treat the public evidence as void and could determine the s.26A costs application; judicial review dismissed.