20 Apr 2026
Extension refused because the applicant failed to provide a reasonable explanation for delay and had constructive notice of the Leave Decision sent to his last known address; he failed to identify any error of law or procedural unfairness in the judge's refusal of leave and the Board's adverse credibility findings were open to it, so the intended appeal had no real prospect of success.
16 Mar 2026
The application for extension of time to appeal was dismissed because the intended appeal had no real prospect of success: there was no evidence a copy of the ancillary relief order served on the Wife was endorsed with a penal notice and no justification to dispense with service; the alleged contempt was resolved by payment and alternatives to committal had already been pursued, rendering committal unnecessary and inappropriate.
22 Nov 2024
Extension of time refused because the applicant was substantially out of time, failed to comply with specific directions to explain the delay or provide grounds of appeal, thereby failing to show a reasonable explanation or any prospect of success; application was an abuse of process and refused without need to consider prejudice to the respondent.
15 Mar 2023
The Building Authority validly issued and effected service of a s24(1) removal order; the structure was an unauthorised new addition not exempt under s41; policy considerations do not invalidate a valid statutory order; appellants were aware of the order and failed to comply or take lawful remedial steps, so no reasonable excuse existed — therefore convictions and penalties were correctly imposed and are upheld.
2 Feb 2023
Defendants were guilty of civil contempt because they failed to comply with the 3rd Orders and the recorded Undertaking by not producing required accounting and supporting documents and by delaying the auditors' accounting adjustments; the requisite mental element was established by attributed knowledge through agents and by defendants' own admissions; penal notices and substituted service were valid and did not defeat committal; sentencing was reserved and indemnity costs ordered nisi.
11 May 2022
The application for leave to appeal was dismissed because the questions raised were case-specific and not reasonably arguable; the Court of Appeal held that none of the grounds advanced met the threshold of general or public importance or reasonable arguability to justify leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal; costs were awarded to the plaintiffs and summarily assessed.
26 Feb 2021
Karibu failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the injunction with penal notice had been personally served on Lau or that the strict test for dispensing with personal service was met; absent personal service on the relevant officer, committal under Order 45 could not be ordered against J Solution or Lau, so the originating summons for committal must be dismissed.
5 Aug 2019
Respondent, despite current unemployment, retains earning capacity evidenced by prior monthly income of approx. HK$20,000 and access to family support; child’s reasonable monthly needs assessed at HK$9,110 and applicant’s request for HK$4,000 per month is less than 50% of that need; accordingly respondent has the capacity and must pay HK$4,000/month child maintenance and symbolic HK$1/year spousal maintenance.
5 Mar 2019
Extension of time refused because the applicant displayed a substantial unexplained delay, failed to offer a reasonable explanation for the delay, and the intended appeal had no real prospect of success; accordingly it was not in the interests of justice to grant an extension.
1 Mar 2019
Extension of time to appeal was refused because the applicant was significantly out of time, provided an inadequate and disbelieved explanation for the delay, produced fresh evidence that did not relate to or advance grounds of review or show prejudice to prior proceedings, and the underlying judicial review had no merit such that granting an extension was not in the interests of justice.