The District Court held that an employees’ compensation policy covering “any Employee” included a driver injured at work, dismissing the insurer’s claim.
The petition was dismissed because the debtor demonstrated a reasonable and arguable defence: there is a genuine dispute over the correct definition and calculation period for the renewal rate (notably whether the relevant months include a period before the contract's effective date of 1 October 2021), and whether certain policies should be included; combined with contested service of the termination letter, these facts constitute a substantial and bona fide defence to the petition, warranting dismissal and a provisional costs order in favour of the debtor.
The District Court held that the subcontract price for additional works had been agreed and was not subject to an unproven pay-when-paid or final-assessment condition.
The Tribunal's findings that the claimants had passed probation, that wages had been unpaid for over one month, and that s10A of the Employment Ordinance thus operated to treat the contracts as terminated by the employer were supported by the evidence and correct in law; the appellant failed to demonstrate any arguable error of law or excess of jurisdiction and could not introduce new evidence on a leave application, therefore leave to appeal was refused.
Court ruled on pre-judgment interest after trial, awarding prime plus 1% from different start dates, refusing delay-based reduction, and construing contractual interest as simple interest.
The lease was ambiguous as to term; applying contra proferentem against the party who prepared the document and considering surrounding facts, the tribunal concluded the lease was for two years from 1 January 2016 to 30 December 2017, and ordered delivery of vacant possession, payment of rent from 1 May 2018 until delivery at HK$8,000 per month, and costs of HK$365.
The Lands Tribunal refused leave to appeal in a tenancy dispute, holding that Clause 3 covered a fair proportion of joint charges, including management charges.
The court interpreted a consent order for sale of the former matrimonial home and held the husband was not required to discharge the mortgage on transfer.