3 Nov 2025
Permission to appeal refused because applicants failed to show an arguable appeal under s.28(1); their grounds merely reasserted disputed facts and did not establish that the Tribunal's adverse credibility findings and factual conclusions were plainly wrong or legally erroneous, and the Tribunal's findings had evidentiary support.
3 Nov 2025
Leave to appeal was refused because the applicants failed to show any legal error or that the tribunal's factual findings were plainly wrong or unsupported by evidence; the tribunal had evidence for its credibility findings and the applicants merely reasserted disputed factual accounts without meeting the high threshold required under s.28(1).
3 Nov 2025
The applicants failed to demonstrate any arguable error of law or that the Tribunal's factual and credibility findings were plainly wrong; the Tribunal's conclusions were supported by evidence and within its fact-finding discretion, therefore permission to appeal under s.28(1) is not warranted.
3 Nov 2025
Applicants failed to demonstrate an arguable legal error or that the tribunal's factual findings were plainly wrong; the tribunal accepted respondent's evidence and had evidential basis for its conclusions, therefore leave to appeal under s.28(1) Cap.338 is refused.
3 Jun 2021
On the balance of probabilities the Court accepted the claimant's evidence and the contemporaneous documentary and WeChat evidence that Deng, at a meeting in late October 2017, orally promised to indemnify Cheng for any shortfall below HK$30,000,000; therefore Deng was liable to pay the shortfall of HK$5,241,286 and interest and costs followed accordingly.
2 Feb 2007
The court rejected the Plaintiff's account as inherently inconsistent and contradicted by contemporaneous documentary evidence (notably Mr Gu's diary and banking timestamp) and more credible witnesses; it found no meeting or promise by Mr Gu and no concluded agreement with the 3rd Defendant; accordingly all contractual, misrepresentation and quantum meruit claims against the 2nd and 3rd Defendants failed and the Plaintiff's claims were dismissed.
14 Feb 1980
The tribunal's finding that there was no express oral promise stands, but the adjudicator erred in resolving the critical factual issue on inadequate evidence without warning the parties that the absent witness should be called; that procedural unfairness requires the matter be remitted for retrial by another adjudicator; costs of the appeal to be the appellants' costs in the cause.
14 Feb 1980
The adjudicator erred by deciding the existence of an alleged express oral promise on inadequate evidence without warning the parties that a necessary witness (the mother) was absent; because the brochure's terms governed the contract absent a clear oral promise, and the procedural unfairness affected the outcome, the matter must be retried by another adjudicator.