28 Aug 2024
The court held the applicant's points related to case‑specific factual determinations and the application of established principles to his file, and did not raise any question of law of great and general importance nor demonstrate substantial and grave unfairness; therefore a certificate under s32(2) was not appropriate and the application was refused.
10 Apr 1984
Security for costs under s.357 was ordered because plaintiffs were companies with paid-up capital of $2 and failed to demonstrate additional assets; the court exercised its broad discretion to fix an aggregate security of HKD 54,000 (HKD 13,500 per plaintiff) based on an assessment that the trial would last five days with only junior counsel instructed and appropriate allowances for counsel and solicitors' costs, and stayed the actions until satisfactory security in the form of bank guarantees was provided.
10 Apr 1984
Plaintiffs are companies with paid-up capital of $2 and failed to prove greater assets; exercising the court's wide discretion under s.357 and guided by Procon, the judge fixed security at a sum calculated to indemnify defendants on a party and party basis ($54,000 total) and stayed the actions until bank guarantees in that amount (divided between plaintiffs) were provided.