6 Dec 2006
On balance the child's welfare required maintaining the status quo in Hong Kong: the relocation risked significant reduction in mother's regular contact, would likely harm the child's emotional and psychological stability, and the father's motive and relocation plan were not found genuinely or sufficiently well‑organized to outweigh that risk; therefore the relocation application was refused.
25 Apr 2006
Where parties have by consent ordered that an independent accountant's reasoned determination will be final and binding, the court will enforce that determination by ordering specific performance of the consent terms and will not permit an adjournment to relitigate the agreed expert determination; legal aid is not available for these excluded proceedings.
11 Jan 2006
The appeal was allowed because the master erred by ordering production and compliance beyond what relevance and the rules governing discovery and interrogatories justified, and by purporting to require a non‑party's signature; the plaintiff was entitled to reasonable time (60 days) to reply to late expert material; accordingly the contested parts of the master's orders were set aside and the defendants ordered to pay the costs of the interlocutory applications and the appeal to the plaintiff (costs to be taxed if not agreed).
8 Nov 2004
The 2nd Plaintiff is a fit person to be appointed sole administrator because she has long conducted the administration, the Defendants previously acquiesced in her conduct, and the court will require security to protect the Defendants' interests so as to facilitate final winding up of the estate.
9 Nov 2001
The court found on the evidence that the 1st Contemnor advertised infringing reproductions of the plaintiff's design on the Hong Kong Enterprise Internet website on the specified dates; the 2nd Contemnor had been personally served, knew of the advertisement and had authorised placement, but failed to take reasonable and continuing steps to ensure withdrawal and to supervise delegated staff; therefore under Order 45 rule 5 the 2nd Contemnor is personally liable for the company's contempt. The court accepted that disclosure obligations were breached in general but declined to commit on particul…
3 Dec 1984
Court had jurisdiction under Rule 77(5) to entertain the summons but refused leave to cross‑examine because the proposed questioning concerned events and intentions subsequent to the order that were irrelevant to construing the undertaking and would cause unnecessary delay and expense; the construction issue must be decided without the proposed cross‑examination.
27 Jan 1972
The consent order was binding as a contract; the defendant admitted breach of its conditions; the court will not relieve a party from contractual obligations for short delay absent equitable grounds; the defendant's application for an extension was dismissed and the plaintiff was granted leave to enter final judgment for possession and mesne profits (with credit for payments made).