22 Jan 2026
Service of the 2nd IP Summons was valid; the applicant established a prima facie entitlement to the further interim payment of US$4.8m based on the parties' own expert valuation and prior reasoning in the 1st IP Decision; accordingly the court ordered payment in terms of the 2nd IP Summons, permitted service out, and assessed costs against AIM and Liu.
20 Jan 2026
The court found sufficient common factual origin and links (cohabitation, contemporaneous seizure of cash and valuables, account transfer history and economic disparity) between D1, D3 and D4 to treat their laundering offences as a related series; consolidation was allowed because any potential prejudice to D3 or D4 could be addressed by a professional judge separating consideration of evidence and counts, and severance would cause inefficiency and repetitive evidence without avoiding the evidential nexus.
24 Oct 2025
The court held the three cases should be consolidated because all charges arose from the same bookmaking operation via the App, the predicate offences and related money laundering offences form part of a single series of offences, the evidence is intertwined and involves the same key witness, and there was no evidence consolidation would prejudice or embarrass the defendants or unduly overburden the court; severance was unnecessary.
24 Oct 2025
The charges across the three cases arise from the same bookmaking operation and stooge account scheme, forming part of a series of offences with intertwined evidence and a common key witness; no evidence of likely prejudice or embarrassment was shown and consolidation would not unduly overburden the court, therefore consolidation is justified and should be granted.
25 Mar 2025
Consolidation was refused because the two proceedings, while overlapping in business activity and one common party, involve distinct facts and risk complicating a combined trial; an order that evidence from one trial stand in the other was refused until witness statements are served; the Commission must provide further and better particulars in the Originating Notice of Application of the proposed pecuniary penalty (amount and methodology including sales value, geographic area, financial years, gravity percentage, duration multiplier, aggravating/mitigating factors), particulars of investigat…
31 Dec 2024
Although there was no contemporaneous documentary proof of overpayment or an express set‑off agreement, the overpayment issue will be litigated in HCA 1030/2023 and equitable considerations and the close relationship between I‑Pipe and Multipipe made it convenient and just to try the related issues together; accordingly the Defendant was granted conditional leave to defend the summary judgment provided the full contested sum of HKD 8,038,000 be paid into Court; amendment and consolidation were allowed; late applications to admit new evidence were dismissed as unnecessary and inadequately expl…
31 Dec 2024
The Defendant lacked contemporaneous documentary evidence to establish the alleged overpayment or an oral set-off sufficient to defeat summary judgment; however, because the overpayment issue will be the subject of a live trial in the related action (HCA1030/2023) and given the close commercial relationship between I-Pipe and Multipipe, the court exercised discretion to grant conditional leave to defend the summary judgment sum on payment of the full HK$8,038,000 into court; amendment to plead wrongful detention and consolidation of the two actions were allowed; late applications to adduce ne…
25 Nov 2024
Consolidation granted because the Plaintiffs had leave to proceed with HCCT 85, there are clear common issues of fact and law between the two proceedings (the erection/relocation of the fence and the alleged 1992 agreement), and consolidation serves the Objectives of procedural economy and cost effectiveness; the Court rejected the submission that the Plaintiffs had abused process given the winding up of YC and legitimate reasons for inactivity, and directed unified trial management including joint expert engagement.
22 Aug 2024
The court dismissed the plaintiff's application to restore the proceedings and refused to allow the plaintiff to proceed 'as of right' with multiple individual interlocutory applications because the disputes raise substantial overlapping private and public law issues, many defendants may pursue judicial review, and the proper exercise of case management powers under Chapter 336H requires staying or managing the proceedings to avoid piecemeal litigation, protect vulnerable defendants, and secure a just resolution in accordance with substantive rights.
27 Nov 2023
The appeal was dismissed because the indorsement of claim and the statement of claim were properly struck out: the SOC pleadings advanced causes of action beyond the scope of the IOC contrary to O.18 r.15(2) (Purview Ground) and the identical pleadings filed in two actions constituted an impermissible multiplicity of proceedings (Duplicity Ground). Other grounds (quantum meruit, limitation, abuse of process) were not plain and obvious and therefore did not justify strike out.