20 Oct 2023
The Notice of Motion for leave to appeal was dismissed because the applicant failed to identify any error in this court's judgment or any question of great general or public importance as required by s22(1)(b) HKCFAO, and there was no basis under the 'or otherwise' limb to grant leave.
11 Jan 2021
Leave to appeal under s.22(1)(b) was refused because the applicant did not identify any arguable error or issue of great general or public importance and failed to engage with the reasons of the lower courts, so the statutory threshold for leave was not satisfied.
23 Aug 2018
The applicant's notice of motion for leave to appeal was refused because he failed to satisfy the statutory threshold in s22(1)(b) Cap 484: there was no prospect of success, no demonstrable real prejudice from the lack of Duty Lawyer Service assistance, and no issue of great general or public importance was raised.
6 Feb 2009
The application for leave to appeal was dismissed because the proposed grounds comprised challenges to the trial judge's findings of primary fact and did not meet the applicable Smith test of having a realistic prospect of success; consequently costs follow the event and are payable by the plaintiff to the defendant, with taxation if not agreed, and a certificate for counsel was appropriate.
21 May 2008
Application refused because the claim remained unliquidated (an asserted agreement on quantum did not convert it and was disputed) and, under s22(1)(b), even a likely monetary threshold exceedance does not suffice absent a question of great general or public importance, which is absent here.
10 Apr 1996
Even assuming the decision was amenable to judicial review, Odelon did not meet the low threshold for leave because the tender process involved multiple non-price criteria set out in the tender documents that plausibly explained acceptance of a lower monetary bid; the Government's (late) written reasons identified legitimate deficiencies in Odelon's submission; there was no obligation to enter further negotiations; accordingly no arguable case of impropriety or legal error was made out and leave was rightly refused; appeal dismissed.