8 Jul 2016
Leave to appeal was refused because the proposed questions did not arise from the judge's ruling and because the statutory discretion under s6 Cap 492 is fact‑specific: substantial overlap of evidence and a related conviction can legitimately be treated as a material reason to refuse costs on partial acquittal, and no new principle required the Court's intervention.
9 Mar 2015
The court refused to exercise its discretion to grant the declarations because the declarations sought were in substance advisory: there was no justiciable dispute or threat of enforcement, and granting such relief would risk opening the floodgates; accordingly the application for declarations was dismissed despite the statutory arguments about expiry of registration and limitation.
20 Dec 1996
The Court affirmed the trial judge's discretionary award of costs to the plaintiff because there was no demonstrable error of principle or fact warranting interference, and exercised its discretion to make no order as to the costs of the appeal.
7 Oct 1993
The court exercised its discretion to grant interim detention orders under s32(4)(b) because the public interest in ensuring the proper administration of justice and securing essential witness evidence for a major criminal trial outweighed the respondents' private liberty interests, given there was a realistic prospect the witnesses could give evidence within a reasonable period (assessed as within approximately 12 weeks); detention limited to a further 21 days from 8 October 1993 was reasonable and proportionate.
13 Nov 1981
The court dismissed the plaintiff's appeal and refused summary judgment because the defendant demonstrated a bona fide arguable defence on the construction and effect of the 11 April 1980 letter and factual disputes that could not be resolved without evidence; additionally, delay in bringing the O.14 application should be justified and affidavit evidence is normally required in the ordinary course; the court ordered further security for costs because the plaintiff is ordinarily resident abroad and the additional HK$7,500 was not oppressive given costs likely to be incurred.
10 Jun 1980
The application under s.6 Cap.182 was properly brought and the court will exercise its summary discretion to restrain the respondent from selling or otherwise disposing of the matrimonial flat and to require alternative accommodation where necessary to protect the wife's right to occupy; the court granted the reliefs sought insofar as they protect occupation (reliefs 1, 2 and 4) while not adjudicating or creating proprietary rights in the property.