23 Oct 2024
The application for leave to appeal was refused because the grounds were predominately factual, not legal, the tribunal's reasons addressed the substantial issues and there was no demonstrable legal error or excess of jurisdiction by the Small Claims Tribunal; the claimant therefore failed to show an arguable legal issue entitling her to leave to appeal.
23 Aug 2024
On the accepted evidence the respondent received the Tribunal order, was shown to have had control/possession of at least the corporation seal and related documents, failed to deliver any corporation items within the 14‑day period, and knew of the order and its penalty; these facts were proved beyond reasonable doubt and establish culpable contempt; Tribunal therefore finds contempt and reserves sentence.
25 Mar 2024
The application for leave to apply for judicial review was dismissed because the applicant had already pursued and exhausted appellate and review remedies; the refusal of leave by the CFI was final under the SCTO; there was no reasonably arguable public law error in the Adjudicator's decision to refuse to review the Costs Order; and it would be disproportionate and an unjustified use of limited court resources to grant leave.
21 Mar 2023
Leave to appeal was refused because the grounds relied on were factual credibility and weight-of-evidence determinations, not errors of law or jurisdictional excess under s28(1); allegations of bias were unsupported by examples showing unfairness.
8 Dec 2021
The appeal is dismissed because the applicant failed to satisfy the 7‑year ordinary residence requirement: the deportation order remained in force until suspended on 23 February 2012 so the Detention and Waiting Periods could not be counted; the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to entertain challenges to the validity or delays in executive decisions concerning the deportation order; there was no convincing evidence of unlawful delay sufficient to undermine the Tribunal's and Judge's factual findings.
10 Nov 2020
Leave to appeal was refused because there were no reasonable prospects of success: the Court properly construed the Award and Addendum and found the Tribunal had identified omissions and validly exercised power to make an additional award under Article 33(3); the Court was entitled to interpret the Award rather than defer to labels used by the Tribunal; issue estoppel did not apply because the Mainland proceedings involved a different party (OE Parent) and there was no privity; the Tribunal's jurisdiction under the Agreement was not shown to be wrong; costs were ordered on an indemnity basis…
6 Aug 2020
Leave to appeal was refused because the respondent's proposed appeal had no reasonable prospect of success and no other interest of justice justification; the Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to entertain the respondent's counterclaims for criminal or general damages beyond damages flowing from breach of tenancy conditions; the interlocutory application to set aside the writ was consequently dismissed and costs were awarded against the respondent.
4 Aug 2020
The tenancy was validly terminated by the applicant's two months notice served on 25 September 2019 by an agent with ostensible authority; the respondent remained in occupation after termination and therefore became a trespasser liable for mesne profits; the tenant was not entitled to unilaterally deduct rent because the tenancy expressly prohibited deductions and common law does not imply a right to set off absent an express term; limited concessionary abatement was permitted by the Tribunal but did not excuse liability from January 2020 onwards; the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to entertain…
25 Feb 2019
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal: the Tribunal had jurisdiction; the correct test for recklessness in s277(1) is the subjective Sin Kam Wah formulation (awareness of risk and it being unreasonable in the circumstances known to the person to take it), which the Tribunal correctly applied and supported by compelling inferences; alternatively the Tribunal correctly found negligence applying an objective standard of care comparable to a market commentator for anyone who disseminates market‑influential information, and the findings of culpability and penalties were upheld.
11 Jan 2018
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed because the adjudicator did not commit any error of law or exceed jurisdiction: the Tribunal lawfully applied the civil standard of proof and its adverse factual conclusions about insufficiency of the defendant's explanations and evidence were open on the material before it, notwithstanding the defendant's prior criminal acquittal.