24 Mar 2021
The Court refused leave to appeal because the application was filed significantly late without explanation, the applicant failed to show a clerical error or accidental slip in the 2009 order (the evidence relied on was insufficient and the change sought would alter substantive obligations), and therefore there was no real prospect of success to justify granting out‑of‑time leave.
17 Jul 2012
The court exercised its discretion to vary the nisi costs order: Wan in her personal capacity was ordered to pay Lo's costs in DCCJ 5748/2007; Wan in her capacity as administratrix and personally jointly and severally was ordered to pay the costs of Mrs Ko and Lo in DCCJ 692/2010; costs to be taxed if not agreed with certificate for counsel; Wan's own costs to be taxed in accordance with legal aid regulations; security for costs of HK$100,000 paid into court to be returned to Mrs Ko.
16 Nov 2009
Application dismissed. The judge held the slip rule (Order 20 r.11) and the court's inherent jurisdiction are confined to correcting clerical errors expressing the court's manifest intention; they do not permit insertion of substantive provisions or correction of an omission that was not a slip. The costs orders' language is conventional and the appropriate forum for determining allowance of costs for inadmissible expert evidence is the taxing master, with taxation to be concluded before any variation is sought.
26 Aug 2009
Although the judgment misstated which flat was the debtor's residential address, the Companies Registry annual return nonetheless established that the debtor had a place of residence in Hong Kong, thereby satisfying section 4(1)(c)(i) and preserving the court's jurisdiction and the outcome of the proceedings.