13 Apr 2026
The application was refused because the plaintiff failed to prove that the summons was validly served in accordance with Order 10 of the Rules; placing the documents in a pouch at the defendant's gate when no letterbox existed did not satisfy the prescribed methods of service, and therefore the precondition for registration of a non-trial judgment was not met.
13 Nov 2025
The court accepted the plaintiff’s evidential account that the amended originating summons was personally tendered and refused by the first defendant, such attempted handover satisfied the Regional Court Rules for service; the first defendant therefore failed to file the required acknowledgements/defence, the registration and consequential orders complied with applicable rules, and the proposed grounds of appeal did not have a reasonable prospect of success, so leave to appeal was refused and costs awarded.
14 Mar 2025
The summons was dismissed because it was unilateral and misconceived: there was no affidavit or evidential basis showing the defendant had agreed to the proposed settlement or costs, payment by an insurer did not justify directing the defendant to pay, and costs orders are discretionary — accordingly no order for costs was made against the unrepresented and absent defendant.
17 Dec 2024
Credible objective evidence (nominal paid-up capital, absence of business presence or corroborating documents showing independent commercial activities, and lack of substantial assets) established a prima facie case under s905 Companies Ordinance that the plaintiff may be unable to pay the defendants' costs; security of $250,000 was appropriate and the Master's costs order was varied to reflect discount for improper material in the defendants' affidavit.
22 Jan 2024
The Master refused the bulk of the fresh discovery application because most categories were unnecessary or already addressed by the 2014 Order and the plaintiff's sworn affirmations were, in the absence of contrary evidence, conclusive; a limited order was made requiring the plaintiff to affirm and produce HSBC joint account statements for 27 January 2004 to 27 July 2012 because a prima facie case for those specific records was established.
27 Oct 2023
Plaintiffs failed to show any proper basis to depart from the general rule that a discontinuing party must pay the defendant's costs because the defendant's affidavit evidence denying possession and raising defences went unchallenged, and the plaintiffs' withdrawal amounted to an acknowledgement of likely defeat; therefore plaintiffs must pay the costs of paragraph 4(2)–(4).
16 Jul 2021
Contemporaneous text messages, the plaintiff's cheque payable to the defendant and deposit into her personal account, together with absence of contemporaneous evidence to support the defendant's shareholders' loan contention, made the defendant's defence inherently implausible; she failed to show a real or bona fide defence and summary judgment for HK$1,650,000 with interest and costs was appropriate.
5 Mar 2021
Defendant established a bona fide triable defence supported by contemporaneous documentary evidence (draft and written venture agreements and transfer records) such that summary judgment and interim payment were not justified; defendant's late affidavit was unnecessary and not permitted absent exceptional circumstances; therefore unconditional leave to defend was granted and interlocutory applications dismissed.
21 Mar 2019
Paragraphs 16–23 of the 8th Affidavit of David Kung and exhibit DK-64 were struck out because they were not responsive to the 4th Affirmation of Ip Mei Ching, were outside the scope of the leave granted by the September Order and related to a prospective, unmade variation application; paragraphs 36–42 of the 9th Affirmation of Lily Fenn and exhibits LF-38 to LF-42 were not struck out because they related to costs of prior litigation which may be relevant to the alleged debts, but their use is confined to the issue of costs and subject to trial judge directions; the subsequently filed 9th Affi…
20 Mar 2018
An affidavit from the Plaintiffs containing the number of settlements, whether HCA 1490/2009 is a subject settlement, material terms with confidential information redacted, and amounts recovered satisfies the Defendants' legitimate need to guard against double recovery and is an appropriate exercise of the court's discretion subject to proposed safeguards; the affidavit must be provided within seven days and the 2nd and 3rd Defendants must be informed of recoveries.