19 Nov 2025
Leave was refused because the Applicant failed to show any reasonably arguable grounds of error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board's comprehensive decision, and the late evidence was unreliable, unexplained and irrelevant to the Leave Application.
30 Jul 2025
D2 failed to demonstrate a real prospect of success on appeal given the standard of appellate review of discretionary decisions; the purported further evidence constitutes a material change of circumstances that requires reassessment of the entire factual matrix and should be raised in a renewed application rather than by reopening the interlocutory decision on appeal; accordingly both the leave to appeal and the further evidence application were dismissed and costs awarded to the Plaintiff.
22 Jul 2025
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 section 22(1)(b) of the Ordinance, his submissions and enclosures were broad, vague and did not demonstrate any error of law in the Deputy High Court Judge's decision, and there was no basis to admit further evidence or to grant leave under the 'or otherwise' limb of section 22(1)(b).
30 Sept 2024
The court accepted the unchallenged expert opinions of Prof Li and Mr Lin that the factual circumstances (adoption as an infant in 1939, family recognition, taking adopter's surname) satisfied Qing law and custom; accordingly Mary was lawfully adopted and is a beneficiary. The court found Victor's allegation of a 1970 'fuzheng' dinner elevating Madam Wong to wife to be inherently implausible and contradicted by repeated prior admissions by Victor and by Madam Wong herself in formal court documents; therefore Madam Wong was a concubine at the time of the deceased's death. Victor's late attempt…
7 Aug 2024
Where a plaintiff is ordinarily resident out of the jurisdiction and is a personal representative, the court may order security for costs because the personal representative is personally liable for costs and the existence or value of an indemnity from the estate is irrelevant to the defendant’s right to enforce costs; no exceptional circumstances justified admitting late valuation evidence; security was ordered in the sum of HK$1.2 million payable within 28 days and costs awarded to the 2nd Defendant.
12 Mar 2024
The court confirmed the liquidators' adjudication because the Petitioner failed to discharge the burden of proving the alleged loans and interest by credible contemporaneous evidence; accounting records and contemporaneous documents were inconsistent with loans owed by the Company and showed sums booked to other group companies, and there was no evidential basis for the claimed interest, so the proofs beyond the admitted principal were rightly rejected.
6 Sept 2023
The appeal is allowed because the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case on the very written Loan Agreement it relied upon: the agreement named a different corporate entity as lender and that misnomer could not be resolved as a mere typographical error at summary judgment on the affidavit record; credible triable issues exist (including the defendant's consultancy agreement defence and demand construction), and exceptional circumstances existed to permit the defendant to file further affidavit evidence to rebut new allegations in the plaintiff's replying affidavit.
12 May 2023
The application for extension of time was refused because the applicant failed to provide an adequate explanation for the delay, failed to identify or argue any legal error in the impugned decision, produced no arguable grounds showing real prospects of success, and impermissibly attempted to add material after the hearing; accordingly leave to appeal was refused.
23 Nov 2022
There is a triable issue as to which corporate entity contracted with the Plaintiff; Bonjour Holdings raised a credible defence that Bonjour Cosmetic was the contracting party given payments and accounting were conducted by Bonjour Cosmetic, the invoices/quotations were dated after performance and lacked company chop, and key actors wore multiple corporate hats, so summary judgment was inappropriate and the Master\u2019s grant of leave to Bonjour Holdings to defend must be upheld; the additional affirmation Wong 2nd was not admitted for lack of special grounds.
28 Apr 2022
The Additional Appeal Bundle was refused because the documents constituted further evidence in the plaintiff's possession before the Master and the plaintiff failed the first Ladd v Marshall condition; the appeal was dismissed because the plaintiff did not demonstrate the Master acted unreasonably or erred in law and failed to obtain reasons or adduce evidence to show such error.