5 Apr 2024
Application for leave to appeal out of time refused because the delay of over four and a half years was excessive, the reasons given were not acceptable, the proposed appeal had weak prospects of success, and granting leave would unfairly prejudice the plaintiff; no costs ordered because the plaintiff was unrepresented.
24 Apr 2018
申請人未能提出任何屬Cap.484 s22(1)(b)所要求之具有重大廣泛或關乎公眾的重要性的可爭辯問題；原破產判決為終局判決且係透過依法進行之法律程序而達致；關於法官及律師不具資格的指控缺乏事實及法律基礎，故拒絕給予向終審法院上訴的許可。
31 Oct 2013
AAL is resident within the jurisdiction of the Hong Kong court and, on the evidence, acted in concert with FM and other Lippo Group entities; the BANI arbitration and Indonesian measures were part of a collusive strategy to frustrate enforcement and thus any risk of double jeopardy is self-inflicted and not a bar to relief. Accordingly the requirements of Order 49 are satisfied and the garnishee order nisi is made absolute and AAL's applications to set aside are dismissed.
24 Dec 2010
Court found that confidential information was imparted to Erving during the 1st Call, that Erving (and his firm) owed a duty of confidence notwithstanding no formal retainer, that Erving breached that duty and compounded the breach by knowingly giving false affidavits and withholding recording/transcript; breach warranted punitive response and exemplary damages were awarded in the sum of HKD 2,140,000 with interest and costs and a referral to the Law Society for disciplinary proceedings.
17 Nov 2008
The application for a stay was refused because the applicant failed to establish proper grounds: the ordinary course permitting enforcement should prevail, the appeal does not automatically stay execution, and the plaintiff has given an undertaking in damages and could reimburse if the defendant succeeded on appeal, so the balance of convenience did not favor a stay.