7 May 2020
The applicant's delay in seeking leave to appeal was substantial and inexcusable given failure to maintain an effective address; because the applicant could not demonstrate a real prospect of success or any error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Director's or Board's decisions, extension of time was refused and the summons dismissed.
6 Oct 2006
The Rent Ordinance s.29 creates a self‑contained regime for holding over disputed government rent; the Commissioner did not have a broader power under s.46 to withdraw holding over orders generally before final determination except insofar as s.29(5) expressly permits cancellation for specified reasons. The Commissioner acted lawfully in cancelling certain orders under s.29(5) for abuse/unreasonable delay but acted ultra vires in purporting to withdraw holding over orders under s.46 in respect of those appellants (Turbo Top, MTR, Chest Gain) where no s.29(5) cancellation was invoked; refusals…
6 Oct 2006
S.29 of the Rent Ordinance establishes a self-contained, certain regime for holding over Government rent and limits the circumstances in which the Commissioner may cancel or alter holding over orders to those specified in s.29; accordingly the Commissioner had no general power under s.46 to withdraw holding over orders. Where the Commissioner relied on s.29(5) and formed an honest, rational opinion that an appellant was unreasonably delaying proceedings or that rent would become irrecoverable, cancellation under s.29(5) was lawful. Individual applications succeeded or failed on application of…
28 Nov 1989
The Court allowed the appeals, holding the judge was wrong to strike out the Section 4 and Section 17 applications solely for delay because the statute permitted applications "at any time" and Birkett v James precludes dismissal for delay alone; on the facts there was no inordinate or inexcusable delay and the strike out orders were set aside and the applications restored.