23 May 2024
Leave to appeal was refused because the proposed questions did not meet the threshold of reasonable arguability or sufficient general or public importance and concerned fact‑sensitive issues already resolved by the trial judge and the Court of Appeal, making a further appeal an improper vehicle for re‑assessment.
12 Sept 2023
The consent order contained an express, clear, mechanical mechanism for determining the reserve price (initial reserve of HK$270m with automatic 5% reductions every 98 days). That mechanism required no further 'working out' so the liberty to apply did not authorize the court to alter the substantive agreed reserve. An implied term permitting market‑linked adjustment would contradict the express terms and amount to rewriting the parties' agreement. Therefore the court lacked jurisdiction to reduce the reserve price and the plaintiff's variation application was dismissed.
13 Dec 2022
The application to vary the costs order nisi is dismissed. The court held that the Plaintiff improperly sought different relief without amendment, failed to show any adjustments by the Defendant that would have altered the outcome, and an unsuccessful interlocutory striking out applicant must bear costs. The existing costs order in favour of the Defendant is made final and costs with a certificate for counsel are to be dealt with as part of that order.
6 Apr 2022
Defendants failed to condescend to particulars and did not establish a bona fide defence; the unpleaded implied term did not save them on summary judgment absent evidence and particulars, but leave to amend was granted and summons adjourned for fairness; accordingly specific performance was ordered against 1st and 2nd Defendants and damages ordered against 3rd and 4th Defendants to be assessed, with costs nisi ordered against the defendants.
14 Oct 2020
Because the petitions are founded on a subsisting judgment enforcing a foreign arbitral award, the judgment debt constitutes prima facie evidence of indebtedness; the respondents' appeals against decisions refusing to set aside statutory demands did not challenge the underlying judgment or award and did not demonstrate fraud, collusion or miscarriage of justice or a reasonable prospect of success on newly raised grounds, so they failed to rebut the prima facie case and the court was entitled to make bankruptcy orders against each respondent.
16 Sept 2019
The application for leave to appeal was refused because the framed question lacked reasonable arguability and was too vague and fact-specific; the plaintiff attempted to resurrect arguments not previously advanced and sought to reframe its case on appeal, failing the high threshold for leave under s22(1)(b). The Court therefore declined to remit the issue to the Court of Final Appeal and awarded costs to the defendant.
8 Mar 2019
Clause 6 unambiguously made the HK$850,000 prepayment a primary, non-refundable but recoupable obligation payable on signing or within 30 days of invoice; the invoices issued corresponded to the Agreement and did not alter the payment obligation; the penalty doctrine did not apply to invalidate the primary prepayment obligation; defendant failed to pay and had no credible defence or triable issue; plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment for HK$850,000 and to an order requiring destruction or return of Licensed Materials in accordance with the Agreement.
4 May 2018
Court held that Dexter and William undertook an obligation to assist (best endeavours) to sell the preferred shares by 31 December 2012 (not an absolute sale obligation); Dexter (1st defendant) had assumed the secondary obligation to purchase the shares at HK$6,666,500 if the first obligation failed, but William was not bound by that 2nd obligation; failure to fulfil the assistance obligation activated Dexter\'s 2nd obligation and Dexter\'s repudiation was accepted on service of writ (20 October 2014) leading to judgment against Dexter for HK$6,666,500 plus interest and costs; no separate dam…
19 Apr 2017
The application for leave to appeal out of time was dismissed because, although the short delay was excusable, the proposed appeal lacked a reasonable prospect of success: the court correctly applied De Monsa to conclude there was no real risk that the missing original Assignment would give rise to a prior encumbrance on title, the defendant's answers to requisitions were adequate (so statutory declarations or further conveyancing evidence were unnecessary), the alleged implied best‑endeavours term was arguable but factual disputes (including whether the purchaser used best endeavours by appl…
24 May 2016
The Court held that paragraphs of the Award ordering CPDH to pay RMB 10,000,000 were set aside because an irregularity occurred: respondents expressly limited the Deeming Provision claim to BPP and did not pursue CPDH, yet the tribunal awarded against CPDH on a basis (including unjust enrichment) that was not part of the issues submitted against CPDH, thereby denying CPDH the opportunity to present its case and deciding matters beyond the submission; the irregularity was sufficiently serious and the court properly exercised its discretion to set aside those parts of the Award.