12 May 2026
Transfer refused because the dispute principally concerns factual questions about what was said and promised regarding promotion of the necklace and does not involve issues of particular commercial importance; case management concerns can be raised with the Master and do not justify transfer to the Commercial List.
23 Apr 2026
The Court of Appeal set aside the orders made by Harris J in the Originating Summonses for irregularity because the judge made substantive orders on matters not listed for hearing and without giving the intervener an opportunity to present evidence and submissions specific to those Originating Summonses; however the Court refused leave to appeal against dismissal of the stay applications, holding the judge had not misdirected himself in his exercise of case management discretion and there was no reasonable prospect of success on those proposed appeals.
23 Apr 2026
The Court allowed the appeals on the primary ground of procedural irregularity: Harris J made substantive orders on the Originating Summonses without those summonses being listed for hearing and without giving the parties the opportunity to file evidence or make submissions on those summonses; accordingly the orders granting registration, rectification and deemed resolutions were set aside and the originating summonses were remitted to a different judge. Separately, the Court refused leave to appeal against the dismissal of the stay summonses because Harris J’s case management discretion was…
17 Apr 2026
The Trustee's summons was dismissed because Bold Shine does not require that a challenge to a plaintiff's standing be tried as a preliminary issue in the present circumstances; Bold Shine addresses authority to sue distinct from standing; the Trustee's attempt to relitigate the May 2023 Order was an abuse of process; the delay in seeking leave to appeal out of time was inexcusable and the Trustee failed to show a real prospect of success; indemnity costs were ordered.
15 Apr 2026
Leave to appeal was refused because the applicant failed to demonstrate that the proposed appeal had a reasonable prospect of success or any other factor warranting a hearing; the procedural conduct complained of did not amount to legal or procedural error and the applicant failed to comply with court-ordered deadlines; accordingly the court's orders were lawful and costs were properly awarded.
14 Apr 2026
The Master erred in disallowing paragraph 3; on balancing case-management imperatives against probative value the contemporaneous assessments by Dr Hung and Dr Yu are sufficiently direct and probative to warrant admission as expert evidence with leave of the court, and allowing them will assist an ex post facto expert and the trial judge; accordingly the appeal is allowed and paragraph 3 reinstated with costs in the cause.
10 Apr 2026
Leave was granted because the 2nd Defendant's affirmation legitimately answered new matters in the Plaintiff's reply and updated material events (sale of Hong Pak Court); the Plaintiff had prior sight of a draft and did not demonstrate specific prejudice from the late filing; moreover, the factual disputes about source of funds may require cross-examination and rescheduling regardless, so refusal was not justified. Costs were ordered against the Defendants.
8 Apr 2026
The nisi costs order was varied: plaintiffs must pay defendants the costs of and occasioned by the originating summons for leave to amend (excluding defendants’ costs of the hearing and preparation); plaintiffs must also pay costs of and occasioned by the amendments; costs of preparing the joint statement up to date are in the cause; plaintiffs’ own costs taxed per legal aid rules; defendants are deprived of their costs of the substantive hearing and preparation and will pay the plaintiffs’ costs of the variation application (nisi) to be taxed on the usual basis; costs to be taxed if not agre…
31 Mar 2026
The Court of Appeal refused leave to appeal against the district judge's case management and committal decisions because the judge had considered the medical evidence and other materials, acted within the generous ambit of discretion required for case management, the contempt finding and indemnity costs were not plainly wrong given the gross delay in filing Form E and lack of reasonable explanation, the WhatsApp material lawfully fell to be expunged for confidentiality and irrelevance, and the proposed bias ground was speculative and not permitted to be raised for the first time.
27 Feb 2026
The court interpreted para 6 of the Order as permitting only additional expert evidence responsive to the defendant’s expert on the second issue (susceptibility to undue influence); because the defendant’s expert did not rely on ‘delusion’ for the second issue and pleadings did not plead delusion as a basis for undue influence, substantial parts of the plaintiff’s experts’ reports dealing solely with delusion and parts addressing Father’s capacity were beyond the permitted scope and were therefore expunged, while material discussing the pleaded medical conditions (vascular MCI and depression)…