10 Jun 2010
The Board was entitled to refuse to state a case because the proposed grounds of appeal, as formulated, did not raise questions of law proper for the High Court to determine; accordingly the applicant's leave application was not reasonably arguable and must be refused.
17 Jul 2007
The Board acted reasonably in refusing to state a case because the majority of the questions either sought to re-open findings of primary fact, were premised on factual findings the Board did not make, or were unclear; accordingly judicial review failed and the refusal to state a case was upheld.
20 Jul 1988
Because sections conferring power to order costs (notably section 20) apply to summary offences and the accused in two matters faced indictable charges which had not been validly converted to summary jurisdiction, the magistrate had no statutory power to award costs in respect of the indictable matters prior to assuming summary jurisdiction; therefore the cost order in favour of To Fuk Ming and the part of Chong Yuen Wah's order referable to the stealing charge (an indictable offence) were ultra vires and must be quashed, while the order was valid insofar as it referred to the summary offence…