11 Sept 2015
No certificate for three counsel was justified because neither the leave applications nor the substantive appeal involved exceptional importance or complexity; issues regarding appointment of a guardian ad litem were matters for local rules and precedent and did not warrant three counsel.
24 Jun 2015
The Court held that the lower courts erred by imposing a Part II MHO‑level evidential threshold and by permitting the plaintiff to oppose a protective appointment; where the statutory criteria and solicitor's certificate under Order 80 are met (and the defendant falls within the MHO definition), the proposed guardian ad litem is entitled to appear without a preliminary court inquiry, and the applicant should be appointed so the defendant's rights can be vindicated on the merits.
24 Jun 2015
Where a defendant plainly meets the statutory definition of a 'mentally handicapped person' (here IQ 62) the procedural scheme in Order 80 r 3(6)(c) and r 3(8) allows a proposed guardian ad litem to appear on the filed solicitor's certificate and consent without a prior court inquiry; the courts below erred by applying a debarring/order‑of‑paternal jurisdiction standard and by permitting the adverse plaintiff to resist a protective appointment, and accordingly the appointment must be granted and the default judgment proceedings restored for determination on the merits.
26 Jan 2011
The appeal is dismissed because the fresh evidence was either obtainable earlier, incredible or an afterthought and in any event did not raise a triable issue sufficient to defeat summary judgment; the Master did not err in refusing the adjournment; however the Court appointed the elder brother as guardian ad litem based on medical evidence of limited capacity relevant to litigation.
3 Jul 2009
Medical and documentary evidence established the defendant has been mildly mentally handicapped since birth with IQ below 70 as defined in the Mental Health Ordinance, the plaintiff filed no opposing affidavit, and therefore the applicant was properly appointed guardian ad litem under Order 80 Rule 6(1)(a).
14 Dec 1992
The District Court's appointment of Mr D was legally indefensible and must be set aside because Mr D lacked the specialized child-welfare qualifications and the independent appearance required of a guardian ad litem and because being a paid private operator created a real and apparent conflict undermining his independence; therefore the Director of Social Welfare is substituted as guardian ad litem and District Judges should appoint only organisations specialising in adoption or individuals with appropriate child-related training backed by sufficient resources.
14 Dec 1992
The District Judge's appointment of Mr D was indefensible because Mr D lacked the specialized qualifications, training and investigatory resources required by Rule 13 and the Second Schedule and because his business model of accepting payment from prospective adopters undermined and objectively vitiated the independence required of a guardian ad litem; accordingly Mr D was removed and the Director appointed as guardian ad litem and the court issued guidance restricting suitable appointees to adoption agencies or individuals with specialist child-related training backed by adequate organisatio…