1 Nov 2023
The applicant failed to satisfy section 22(1)(b) Cap.484 because he provided no grounds and did not identify any question of great general or public importance, and there was no basis to invoke the 'or otherwise' limb; accordingly, leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal was refused and the Notice of Motion dismissed.
20 Oct 2023
The applicant failed to identify any question of great general or public importance and did not advance viable grounds for the intended appeal; therefore the statutory criteria in section 22(1)(b) were not satisfied and leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal must be refused.
13 Oct 2023
The Notice of Motion was dismissed because it did not identify any question of great general or public importance as required by s22(1)(b) Cap.484 and no other basis for granting leave was shown; consequently leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal was refused.
18 Oct 2022
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 no basis was shown under the alternative "or otherwise" limb; therefore the statutory criteria for granting leave were not satisfied.
16 Sept 2022
Leave to appeal was refused because the applicant did not identify any question of great general or public importance as required by section 22(1)(b) Cap.484, the matters raised were unarguable, and there was no basis to invoke the "or otherwise" limb; accordingly the statutory requirements for leave were not met.
8 Sept 2022
Leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal was refused because the applicant failed to identify any question of great general or public importance under s.22(1)(b) and there was no basis on the 'otherwise' limb; the Court accepted the Board's factual findings that there was no real risk of harm and dismissed the Notice of Motion.
21 Apr 2022
The notice of motion for leave to 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 there was no basis under the 'or otherwise' limb to grant leave; personal claims of danger and corruption do not meet the statutory threshold.
24 Sept 2021
Leave to appeal was refused because the applicant provided no grounds and did not identify any question of great general or public importance under section 22(1)(b) Cap.484; no basis existed to grant leave under the 'otherwise' limb, so the notice of motion was dismissed.
17 Sept 2021
Extension of time to apply for leave to appeal is refused because the applicant failed to demonstrate sufficient merits in the proposed appeal, failed to identify any question of great general or public importance under section 22(1)(b), and provided no adequate explanation for the delay; these factors outweigh the shortness of the delay.
17 Sept 2021
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) of the Ordinance and no basis was shown under the 'or otherwise' limb to justify leave.