24 Sept 2021
The Court granted the Intended Intervener leave to intervene but adjourned the application to restore the company and ordered the Applicants to file supplemental evidence because the Applicants' explanation for restoration was seriously deficient and inadequate to allow the court to assess impact on third parties or the merits.
3 Aug 2020
The court exercised its discretion under Order 15 r6(2)(b) to grant Mr and Mrs K leave to intervene in the wardship proceedings for the limited purpose of applying for prior authorisation under s23A(1)(c) of the Adoption Ordinance because the wardship court is the guardian of the child, prior leave is needed to avoid breaching s23A, and it is practical and proportionate to determine the s23A application within the existing wardship proceedings subject to safeguards (a confidentiality undertaking and a six‑month time limit).
12 Apr 2016
Nothing in the Employees Compensation Assistance Ordinance (including s20B(3)) curtails the court's wide jurisdiction under s52A of the High Court Ordinance to award costs against the Fund Board when it joins or intervenes; exercise of that discretion depends on the facts of each case and, on these facts, the Fund Board acted unreasonably so it must pay the plaintiff's costs from 17 September 2013 onwards, with no order for costs prior to that date; plaintiff's costs are to be taxed in accordance with Legal Aid Regulations.
17 Dec 2015
The defendant and intended intervener failed to demonstrate a defence with a real prospect of success because their account and transfer explanations were inconsistent, unsupported by contemporaneous bank records, and not credible; accordingly the inter parte summons to intervene/set aside judgment was dismissed and the garnishee order was made absolute.
18 Feb 2011
Although the applicant demonstrated a potentially meritorious defence, the court exercised its unfettered discretion under O.13 r.9 against setting aside the regular default judgment because of very substantial and unexplained delay, a conscious decision not to challenge the judgment earlier, prejudice to the plaintiff through reliance and deterioration of evidence (including plaintiff's advanced age), and the public policy of finality in litigation; accordingly the application to intervene and to set aside the judgment was dismissed.
24 Mar 2006
Because the Appellant's success on the appeal was partial and there were significant failures (notably on privacy and some right-of-silence grounds, and no finding of bad faith), the court exercised its discretion to make no order as to costs in respect of the appeal and the two directions hearings; however, the non-disclosure rendered the trial a mistrial so the Appellant is entitled to the trial costs, and the intervention application was unnecessary and should be paid for by the Respondent, so the Appellant is awarded costs for that application.
17 Feb 2005
The Court held that a management committee is not a legal entity independent of the incorporated owners but functions as their agent; the earlier management committee (respondent in LDBM 20/2002) had ceased to hold office and therefore lacked capacity and authority to enforce the costs orders or pursue taxation; given the serious disputes about capacity and authority pending in other proceedings, the Master was correct to stay the taxation proceedings and the appeal is dismissed.
24 Dec 2004
The Master rightly set aside the default judgment and made the orders for joinder and stay because the judgment could be enforced and would prejudice the intervener and potentially impede the husband's ability to provide ancillary relief; the intervening applications and discovery were properly made and the costs orders were justified given the timing of undertakings and the conduct of the parties.
6 Aug 2002
Applicants demonstrated an arguable proprietary interest (either as an unwritten equity or under the Chinese Agreement) such that they had sufficient interest to intervene; the master's dismissal of their joinder application was set aside, leave to appeal out of time granted, but the charging orders were not set aside at this interlocutory stage because that issue requires trial; an interim stay of execution of the charging orders (including the writ of possession) was granted until trial or further order; costs were ordered nisi in favour of the Applicants.
5 Mar 1991
The Court held that the 5th defendant had a direct legal interest in the Arbus Agreement which was connected to the injunctive relief sought by the plaintiff; accordingly the judge should have exercised jurisdiction under Order 15 r.6(2)(b)(ii) to permit intervention and the imposed term precluding the intervener from seeking costs was inappropriate and therefore discharged; costs of the intervention application were awarded to the 5th defendant against the plaintiff and the appeal was allowed while the cross‑appeal was dismissed.