22 Sept 2015
Tenants admitted arrears and raised no legally tenable defence; tribunal lawfully ordered possession subject to giving an extended relief period by agreement; there was no objective basis to find the member biased so recusal denied; leave to appeal denied as proposed appeal had no real prospect of success and no other reason to permit hearing.
7 Jan 2014
Leave to appeal was refused because the intended appeal had no reasonable prospect of success and there was no other reason in the interests of justice: the strike out application lacked basis because the defendant had not appealed the underlying costs orders; the recusal allegations were unfounded; and the legal points advanced were irrelevant to the matters subject to the intended appeal.
20 Aug 2013
The appeal was dismissed because the defendant failed to establish any reasonable grounds for recusal—the prior decision involved unrelated proceedings to which he was not a party—and the strike out challenge based on the Basic Law and conspiracy allegations lacked any foundation; the originating summons to enforce valid costs orders may proceed and costs were awarded to the plaintiff to be summarily assessed.
19 Oct 2012
The magistrates lawfully exercised their discretion under the Magistrates Ordinance to refuse to issue summonses for good cause, there was no evidence of bias that would cause a fair-minded informed observer to apprehend prejudice, and there was no factual basis to issue an arrest warrant or to order disclosure of the defendant's address; accordingly the appeals are dismissed.
15 Dec 2009
Recusal refused because a fair-minded informed observer would not conclude a real possibility of bias given differences between the prior case and the instant appeal and the role of a single judge on rehearing; the conviction was upheld because the appellant at times completely blocked Battery Path and, on the facts and in light of YEUNG May Wan, his obstruction exceeded the bounds of reasonable exercise of the right to demonstrate; the appropriate disposal of sentence was substitution of immediate imprisonment with 180 hours community service as a proportionate, constructive sanction.
30 Jun 2009
Application for recusal refused because a fair‑minded and informed observer, informed by the facts that the applicant was neither party nor witness in the earlier trial, that the earlier findings did not implicate the applicant as part of the dishonest culture, that the two conspiracies were different in nature and period, the passage of time, and the appellate role of assessing legal and logical errors, would not conclude there was a real possibility that Wright J would be biased; therefore the Locabail test is not met.