New judgments

We are satisfied that leave to appeal should be granted in the present case. However, we consider that the issues arising are not properly reflected in the questions and “or otherwise” grounds formulated by the applicant.

On 30 June 2015, the appellants were convicted after trial before HH Judge C P Pang on joint charges of conspiracy for an agent to solicit an advantage and dealing with property known or believed to represent the proceeds of an indictable offence. The prosecution's case was that the appellants had solicited a secret commission of $980,000 from the prospective operator of a restaurant in a hotel which the 1st appellant had been engaged to manage, for agreeing to award him the restaurant management contract. The prosecution evidence consisted of testimony and covert recordings of undercover ICAC officers posing as persons interested in securing the contract, with five of eight meetings recorded. The appellants were sentenced to 2 years 6 months' and 2 years 3 months' imprisonment respectively, which sentences have been served in full.

A winding-up petition was presented by JIC Trust Co., Ltd against China Properties Group Limited, and a winding-up order was made. The petitioning debt was one that the petitioner had assigned to a third party in the Mainland prior to the winding-up order, but the petitioner deliberately chose not to serve notice of the assignment on the company. The company did not challenge the petitioner's locus standi at the time the winding-up proceedings were commenced or when the winding-up order was made. The company subsequently sought to set aside the winding-up order and to adduce fresh evidence regarding the assignment.

In 2009, the applicant Lam deposited a total of HK$42.85 million into the respondent CCF's bank account. Lam sued for repayment, alleging the money was borrowed by CCF to finance its probate litigation against Tony Chan, while CCF alleged it was an unconditional donation. The trial judge found there was an oral loan agreement, with the sums repayable on demand after conclusion of the probate action, bearing interest at 'the maximum rate permitted by the law', which he construed as 48%. The Court of Appeal upheld the finding that the agreed term was interest at the maximum rate permitted by law, but set aside the 48% rate and held instead that the parties objectively intended 60%, taking into account the Money Lenders Ordinance.

This is the applicant’s appeal against the order of Deputy High Court Judge (Non-refoulement Claims) Sabrina Ho (“ the Judge ”) dated 23 March 2026 ( [2026] HKCFI 1223 ) (“ the Leave Decision ”) dismissing his application for leave to apply for judicial review (“ the Leave Application ”) against the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office (“ the Board ”) dated 22 December 2021 (“ the Board’s Decision ”), whereby the Board dismissed his appeal against

This is the applicant’s appeal against the order of Deputy High Court Judge (Non-refoulement Claims) Sabrina Ho (“ the Judge ”) dated 24 March 2026 ( [2026] HKCFI 1352 ) (“ the Leave Decision ”) dismissing her application for leave to apply for judicial review (“ the Leave Application ”) against the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office (“ the Board ”) dated 17 March 2022 (“ the Board’s Decision ”), whereby the Board dismissed her appeal against th

This is the applicant’s appeal against the order of Deputy High Court Judge (Non-refoulement Claims) Calvin Cheuk (“ the Judge ”) dated 17 March 2026 ( [2026] HKCFI 1505 ) (“ the Leave Decision ”) dismissing her application for leave to apply for judicial review (“ the Leave Application ”) pursuant to her own request for cancellation. Her intended judicial review is to challenge against the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office (“ the Board ”) date

This is the applicant’s appeal against the order of Deputy High Court Judge (Non-refoulement Claims) Calvin Cheuk (“ the Judge ”) dated 17 March 2026 ( [2026] HKCFI 1489 ) (“ the Leave Decision ”) dismissing his application for leave to apply for judicial review (“ the Leave Application ”) against the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office (“ the Board ”) dated 25 April 2022 (“ the Board’s Decision ”), whereby the Board dismissed his appeal against

2025年7月2日，高等法院原訟法庭法官陳嘉信 (「陳法官」) 頒下判決，駁回申請人的司法覆核許可申請 ( [2025] HKCFI 2564 ) (「該判決」)。