22 Aug 2025
何漢標 對 李妙桂
- Citation
- [2025] HKCA 754
- Court
- Court of Appeal
- Case number
- CACV340/2023
The appeal was dismissed because the statutory demand pursued judgment debts established and repeatedly upheld in prior proceedings and appeals exhausted; the appellant failed to meet the high threshold to set aside the demand or to admit new evidence (the proposed evidence was irrelevant to the set‑aside issue and did not satisfy the Ladd v Marshall test); the demand complied with r44; allegations of fraud/collusion/bias were unsupported and insufficient to justify re‑opening the judgments or recusal.