2 Dec 2025
The court has jurisdiction under its inherent powers and the 'liberty to apply' provision to amend/clarify the prior order by specifying the boundary co-ordinates of the Lot to reflect the court's original intention and to facilitate enforcement; accordingly the summons was granted and coordinates were specified, and costs were awarded to the plaintiff.
15 Mar 2018
Judge allowed amendment of the plaintiff\'s irregularity summons under Order 20 r.8; refused to set aside Master K Lo\'s order for irregularity because the complaint of judicial error was an appealable error of law; granted plaintiff relief from the sanction under Order 2 r.4‑5 because non‑compliance was not intentional or contumelious, the immediate cause was lack of consensus and carelessness rather than bad faith, and refusing relief would be disproportionate given consequences; but on separate weighing under Order 2 r.3 the judge found the plaintiff\'s repeated procedural flouting and lac…
2 Dec 2011
The court refused to amend the prior order or engagement letter because the matters raised were or could have been raised earlier and there was no substantive need to alter the terms; valuers are not obliged to obtain additional valuations at this late stage where prior valuations exist; inspection rights remain limited as per the 2007 consent order; costs of the applications are payable by the Respondents to the Petitioner on a party-and-party basis.
19 Feb 2009
Court dismissed the appeal; held the examination and substituted service orders were valid, Order 49B is not unconstitutional, amendments to correct clerical errors could be made ex parte, lack of personal service did not render amended orders nullities, and the plaintiff received a fair rehearing; costs awarded to the 1st defendant.
19 Feb 2009
The Court dismissed the appeal because the plaintiff failed to demonstrate any substantive error: Order 49B and the examination regime are constitutional and appropriately invoked; the Master acted within discretion; clerical errors in the Examination Orders were amendable under Order 20 r11 or inherent jurisdiction; lack of personal service did not render amended orders void; substituted service and ex parte amendments were properly handled, therefore the Examination Orders and Substituted Service Orders stand.
20 Oct 2006
The ex parte Examination Orders and Substituted Service Orders were lawfully made under the Rules of the High Court; omissions relied on by the plaintiff were not material to the exercise of discretion, substituted service was justified on affidavit evidence of evasion/unavailability, the errors were clerical and amendable, failure to personally serve amended orders did not render them void, and therefore the plaintiff's applications to set aside the orders lacked merit; appeals dismissed and costs awarded.
20 Oct 2006
The ex parte Examination Orders and Substituted Service Orders were validly made; the plaintiff failed to prove material non‑disclosure or falsity in the evidence for substituted service; the attempts to serve personally justified substituted service on the evidence of evasion; clerical errors were amendable under Order 20 r11 and did not invalidate the orders; therefore the appeals to set aside the orders fail and are dismissed with costs.
16 May 2001
The judge inferred that the direction for hearing before the Master was made by the consent of the parties based on prior attendance before the Master, the judge's oral directions referring to adjournment to the Master, and the clerk's endorsement; accordingly the order was amended to insert the words 'by consent' in paragraph 2.