21 May 2024
The court, exercising its discretion on summary assessment of costs and having considered the parties' claims and objections, reduced the applicant's claimed costs to a reasonable sum of HK$300,000.
20 Aug 2021
The court found on the balance of probabilities that the 1st defendant and the Deceased jointly and adversely possessed the Land from 1980 to 2000 as joint squatters with equal rights and thereafter the 1st defendant continued adverse possession until 2009; the plaintiff failed to prove the existence of a licence; accordingly the 1st defendant acquired a good possessory title in her own right and holds the Land as tenant in common in equal shares with the Estate, entitling her to declarations, an account of half the income since early October 2009 and costs.
26 Nov 2019
The wife demonstrated a real risk of financial prejudice if the decree absolute were made now (loss of interim remedies, risk on death, inability to pursue proprietary or maintenance pending suit claims) and the husband offered no undertakings to protect her; applying the test in JAH v VH the court refused to make the decree absolute and dismissed the husband's summons.
9 Jun 2014
Retrospective leave to file the 7th Affirmation was refused because the proposed amendment sought to introduce a new and substantial claim (that the applicant was wife under a void marriage) which, on the material facts and prior findings, could not constitute a void marriage but at best a non-marriage; the application was unacceptably late with no satisfactory explanation and would cause real prejudice to the respondent by requiring further evidence and adjournment of the fixed trial date. No exceptional circumstances existed to justify postponing trial, so the 7th Affirmation must be expung…
31 Dec 2013
2nd defendant occupied under a bare licence; proprietary estoppel not established because no assurances or encouragement by the owners and detriment was not such as to make it inequitable to revoke; the bare licence was revoked by letter dated 22 November 2011 and plaintiff entitled to possession; no trial required under O.113.