29 Jun 2006
An RPO and an RAO were appropriate and justified: Mr Yu's repeated attempts to re-litigate matters already finally determined demonstrated vexatious abuse of process; the orders sought (with specified deletions) were made to prevent further abuse and to protect the administration of justice; costs were ordered nisi against Mr Yu for the RPO/RAO hearings.
29 Jun 2006
Mr Yu repeatedly sought to relitigate matters finally decided by the High Court and Court of Appeal; the Court found his conduct amounted to vexatious abuse of process and that RPO and RAO are appropriate and lawful under Practice Direction 11.3 (and do not breach human rights or the Basic Law as confirmed by the CFA), therefore the court granted the restrictions sought (with specified modifications) and ordered costs nisi against Mr Yu.
10 Jan 2002
The court held that the documentary and transactional evidence (statement suffixes, interest charged on full purchase price at prime plus 10%, absence of CAP Finance statements and reference to CAP Securities' client agreement) demonstrated treatment as a cash client despite the signed MOD, and therefore ordered reclassification to a cash client account.
10 Jan 2002
Because the account statements bore a 02 suffix, financing was charged on the entire purchase price at a rate consistent with CAP Securities (prime plus 10%) and there were no statements from CAP Finance, the court concluded that CAP Securities treated Mr Chan as its cash client and ordered reclassification despite the signed MOD.