7 Sept 2010
The applications were dismissed because the applicant failed to meet the high threshold required to rescind a single judge's grant of leave to appeal; the appeal was arguable and therefore the stay of the custody order pending appeal should be maintained in the interests of the children.
31 May 2010
Leave to appeal was granted because the circumstances of the expedited hearing and the jurisdictional question rendered appellate scrutiny appropriate; the court declined to decide further substantive issues at this stage and reserved costs of the leave application.
7 Jun 1995
The plaintiff was entitled to costs of the summons up to 1 June (the date the outstanding Tai Lung Shi matter was answered) but not to costs occasioned by fixing the expedited hearing; the defendants were awarded the costs of the hearing on 7 June and may tax those costs, including provision for two counsel.
22 Dec 1989
On the interlocutory application the Court held that the judge's order should stand because the balance of convenience overwhelmingly favoured the defendants, the plaintiffs' position would not be materially worsened, Bureau Veritas required plaintiff authority so the order merely reinstated the prior position, and mandatory injunction principles did not justify setting the order aside.