2 Jul 2019
The Tribunal correctly referred the matter because it lacked power to grant the injunction sought and the claim may exceed the Tribunal's monetary jurisdiction (HK$75,000); the principal dispute is factual and thus appropriately determined by the District Court, so the referral was lawful and must be upheld.
4 Mar 2005
The Court allowed the appeal, set aside the deputy judge's order and dismissed the O14A summons because the defendant's claim for indemnity under the PLE involves issues of fact (notably whether damage occurred during the period of insurance in light of a continuing nuisance) which cannot properly be resolved on an O14A determination; accordingly the strike out was inappropriate and the insurer's contentions (including reliance on pre-existing seepage) require evidence at trial.
14 Feb 1985
Unconditional leave to defend was granted on both nuisance and trespass because contested legal questions (existence and scope of any licence or acquiescence, whether an implied easement of necessity arose, and the proper extent of air‑space rights) are properly matters for full trial; there was no implied easement of necessity at the time of the 1971 grant and at best the defendant held a revocable bare licence which was revoked by letter dated 1 November 1984.