7 Nov 2024
Application dismissed because the applicant failed to plead any grounds in Form 86 and, on the merits, the District Office's letters fell within its duty to resolve an estate management crisis and did not usurp the Lands Tribunal's function.
19 Nov 2021
The court dismissed both summonses because the applicant failed to satisfy the Bonnard v Perryman criteria: he did not exclude the possibility of a successful defence (qualified privilege applied and was plausibly available), failed to demonstrate a real threat or intention to republish, and could not establish malice on interlocutory affidavit evidence; additionally the application to admit late police evidence failed Ladd v Marshall's first and second conditions (evidence obtainable with reasonable diligence and unlikely to change the interlocutory outcome).
21 Jun 2018
The proceedings had become totally academic following the election of a new management committee; the applicant had an arguable case and did not admit lack of merit; exercising the wide discretion under Rule 27 LTR it was appropriate to make no order as to costs of the discontinued main proceedings, but an order nisi was appropriate for costs of the interlocutory application dated 12 January 2018 in favour of the applicant to be taxed on the District Court scale.
20 Aug 2004
The balance of convenience favoured allowing the existing contractor (Po Fat) to complete the fire services under the Building Contract and, because the defendants as management committee members had procured the contract and appointment of the Authorized Person, the court ordered the defendants to take all reasonable steps to enable and ensure Po Fat and its subcontractor complete the works to comply with the Fire Hazard Order; costs of the application were ordered to be the plaintiffs' costs in the cause.
10 Oct 1983
Contributions under Cap.344 are statutory debts enforceable by distraint under Cap.7 and alleged mismanagement is not a defence to payment; defects in notice and appointment did not invalidate the committee's acts because omissions to serve notice were accidental and company law saving principles (s.37 Cap.344 and s.157 Companies Ordinance applied in pari materia) preserve the validity of the resolutions and authorisations, therefore warrants to distress remain valid and the applications to discharge are dismissed.