6 May 2026
The applicant failed to satisfy section 22(1)(b) by identifying any question of great general or public importance or any reasonably arguable ground of appeal, and no basis existed under the "otherwise" limb; therefore leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal was refused and the Notice of Motion dismissed.
30 Apr 2026
Leave to appeal was refused because the applicant failed to identify any question of great general or public importance under s22(1)(b) Cap 484, and the Notice of Motion did not particularise any reasonably arguable error in the Court of Appeal judgment nor establish any basis under the "otherwise" limb.
20 Apr 2026
The Notice of Motion was dismissed because the applicant proffered no adequate explanation for an inordinate delay of approximately 15 months and failed to file written submissions (thereby abandoning that right), and because the application did not identify any question of great general or public importance nor any reasonably arguable ground under s22(1)(b) Cap 484 or the "otherwise" limb.
18 Mar 2026
Leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal is refused because the applicant failed to identify any question of great general or public importance under s.22(1)(b), the assertions were broad and vague and did not particularise the applicant’s circumstances, factual challenges lie within the Board’s province, and there is no basis under the 'or otherwise' limb; additionally the applicant failed to file written submissions and is deemed to have abandoned them.
25 Feb 2026
The Notice of Motion was dismissed because the applicant provided no satisfactory explanation for an approximately one year delay and failed to identify any question of great general or public importance or any reasonably arguable ground under s22(1)(b) Cap 484; procedural default in failing to file submissions justified determination on the papers and dismissal.
28 Oct 2025
Leave to appeal was refused because the applicants failed to identify any question of great general or public importance under section 22(1)(b); their submissions were confined to fact‑specific allegations which the court found unarguable and there was no basis under the "or otherwise" limb.
3 Oct 2025
The Notice of Motion for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal was dismissed because the applicant failed to identify any question of great general or public importance under section 22(1)(b) Cap 484 and raised no reasonably arguable error in the Court of Appeal's judgment; consequently there was no basis to grant leave, including under the 'otherwise' limb.
12 Sept 2025
The Court dismissed the application for leave to appeal because the applicants failed to identify any error in the Court of Appeal's judgment or any question of great general or public importance under s22(1)(b), and offered no basis under the 'or otherwise' limb; therefore leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal was refused and the Notice of Motion dismissed.
22 Jul 2025
The notice of motion for leave to appeal was dismissed because the applicant's submissions were broad and vague, failed to engage with her particular circumstances, did not raise any question of great general or public importance under section 22(1)(b) of the Ordinance, and presented impermissible challenges to findings of fact that are for the Board to determine; no basis existed under the 'or otherwise' limb to grant leave.
16 Jun 2025
The Notice of Motion was dismissed because the applicant failed to provide any explanation for the filing delay, failed to identify any question of great general or public importance under s22(1)(b) Cap 484 and disclosed no reasonably arguable ground of appeal; the applicant was also debarred for failing to lodge written submissions.