13 Feb 2026
The ex parte Mareva/proprietary injunction was obtained abusively because there was no genuine urgency or secrecy and because applicants failed to make full and frank disclosure of material facts (MNDs 1–6 proven); accordingly the injunction is discharged and a renewal/re-grant is refused; costs follow the event with a certificate of two counsel.
30 Aug 2024
All four applications for leave to appeal were refused because the intended appeals had no reasonable prospect of success: the courts below acted within their discretion; the plaintiff abused ex parte procedure and made material non-disclosures or misleading statements; the plaintiff failed to show the high degree of assurance required to justify injunctions that would extinguish the defendant's lien; discovery and expert directions were appropriate and proportionate; and the case management decisions (including refusal to adjourn) were not plainly wrong.
6 Feb 2024
The plaintiff failed to properly apply to vary or stay the Costs Order Nisi within the required timeframe, relied on ex parte communications and repetitive applications that amounted to an abuse of process; the defendant's statement of costs was properly served and therefore costs were summarily assessed and ordered to be paid by the plaintiff on an indemnity basis.
22 Dec 2023
Although the judge had concerns about aspects of Father's conduct (omission of residential address in affirmation, production of an unsigned offer to lease, and videotaped evidence of the child), the evidence was insufficient to establish fabrication or material non-disclosure or to conclude that Father's conduct crossed the threshold of reprehensible or unreasonable conduct required to depart from the general practice; Mother did not commit material non-disclosure at the ex parte stage; accordingly no order as to costs was made (including costs of the ex parte hearing), and the ex parte cost…
15 Aug 2023
The 2023 Hong Kong injunction was discharged because (1) enforcement of the Australian ex parte freezing order would, in the particular circumstances, conflict with public policy by disregarding company creditors and the separate corporate personality and reflective loss principles; (2) the Wife failed to demonstrate a real risk of dissipation given Hong Kong assets were a small fraction of the matrimonial pool and protective undertakings existed; and (3) the ex parte order was unjustified and obtained with serious material non-disclosures and abuse of process, so the injunction must be disch…
10 Nov 2022
The JOLs had represented to the court that they would bear the costs of and occasioned by the Application and would not seek to recover such costs and their remuneration from the company's assets; the judge properly exercised her discretion in making the Costs Order on that basis and because the JOLs' conduct (including failures of full and frank disclosure and use of an ex parte Cayman mechanism) did not show any reasonable prospect of success on appeal; accordingly leave to appeal was refused and the summons dismissed and a costs order nisi made that the JOLs are not entitled to recover the…
10 Nov 2022
Leave to appeal was refused because the JOLs had, by written statements and oral submissions, represented they would bear and not seek to recover costs and remuneration from the company's assets, made no substantive opposition when the court raised concerns, failed to demonstrate any reasonable prospect of success on the grounds advanced (including full and frank disclosure and other alleged errors), and therefore the Costs Order was properly made and should stand.
19 Aug 2022
The court found the JOLs/PLs made material misrepresentations and deliberate non‑disclosures to the Cayman and Hong Kong courts, engaged in forum shopping and acted inconsistently with their duties as officers of the court; accordingly the court refused to allow recovery of the JOLs’ remuneration and costs from the company’s assets and ordered the JOLs personally to pay the costs of the Official Receiver (HK$29,000) and to bear all costs and remuneration occasioned by the ex parte Application.
5 Nov 2021
The court rejected the respondent's claim of an oral settlement as inherently improbable and lacking particulars; accordingly there was no material non-disclosure by the petitioner in her application for the charging order. The duty of full and frank disclosure applies to ex parte applications and does not require the petitioner to disclose the alleged subsequent oral agreement after the charging order nisi where the respondent had notice and opportunity to oppose; therefore the respondent's application to discharge the charging order must be dismissed.
25 Sept 2020
The Intended Party's notice of appeal and ex parte applications were dismissed because she lacks locus standi as prior decisions conclusively denied intervention and were not disclosed to the duty judge; the Duty Judge's Leave was merely procedural and did not confer standing; undisclosed privileged documents cannot be considered without violating natural justice; Registrar Lui's orders of 5 May 2020 (including striking out the defence and entering judgment) therefore stand and the Intended Party's applications are abusive and dismissed with indemnity costs on a nisi basis.