29 Nov 2024
Applicant failed to establish relevance and necessity of the broad third‑party discovery to ancillary reliefs; requests were disproportionately wide and unbounded in time; there was no established finding of breach to justify the tracing exercise by third‑party compulsion; in the exercise of discretion the TP Summonses were dismissed and costs ordered against the applicant.
11 Mar 2024
Defendant's RMB-HKD exchanges via an unlicensed agent contravened PRC foreign exchange regulations and constitute a Ryder type 2 foreign illegality; as a result the transactions are unenforceable in Hong Kong and the defences of change of position and bona fide purchaser are unavailable, entitling plaintiff to summary judgment for restitution of the specified sums; the contested materials need not be expunged and the admissibility application is dismissed.
20 Feb 2024
The application for leave is refused because all proposed grounds are impermissible factual challenges dressed as legal issues; the Tax Board applied the correct evidential standard and properly weighed audited accounts and other evidence; applicants failed to discharge the burden to show the assessments were excessive or incorrect; the privilege point was not raised below and is unsupported, and no arguable legal issue with a reasonable prospect of success was shown.
20 Feb 2024
The court held that plaintiffs established cogent and persuasive reasons and special circumstances to release the implied undertaking: defendant had not asserted privilege against self-incrimination at the time of compelled disclosure and thus cannot rely on it now; there is prima facie evidence of wrongdoing (including potential computer misuse, theft and Mainland trade secret infringement) and an arguable civil claim in the Mainland; accordingly the implied undertaking is released to permit use of the disclosed materials for the specified civil and criminal proceedings and plaintiffs are aw…
5 Jan 2024
Where a defendant was arrested, cautioned and maintained his right of silence and has not waived it, the prosecution may not question or rely on the defendant's pre-trial lack of or late complaint or disclosure about alleged police impropriety (including matters addressing incriminating evidence) so as to impeach credibility or infer guilt; on the facts any infringement by the fluorescent‑powder cross‑examination was minor and was cured by the judge's general directions, so the appeal is dismissed and conviction and sentence are upheld.
21 Sept 2023
Leave to appeal was dismissed because the petitioner lacked a reasonable prospect of success: Rule 121(2) permits non-party applicants and therefore MRL, not the petitioner, was the proper applicant; the petitioner’s ‘‘two-stage’’ procedure was not pleaded and had no merit; the judge correctly exercised discretion by balancing confidentiality of family proceedings against the need for disclosure for criminal defence; no misdirection, irrelevant consideration or plain error was shown; accordingly leave was refused and costs ordered.
31 Aug 2023
The assignment of the defendant's interests to Southern Capital Ltd (a separate BVI company wholly owned by him) on 27 July 2018 amounted objectively to 'dealing with' the assets within the meaning and purpose of the freezing injunction because it vested the interests in a different legal entity and materially weakened the plaintiffs' ability to enforce a future judgment; the defendant knew of the injunction and, given his background and steps taken, intended to conceal and shield the properties such that the requisite mental element for civil contempt is established; additionally, the defend…
24 May 2023
The court refused the Rule 121 application because, on a proportionality balancing exercise, the petitioner's request to disclose a large volume of confidential matrimonial materials to assist a non‑party criminal defendant did not justify lifting the implied undertaking; the applicant failed to show necessity, bona fides and that the materials could not be appropriately handled within criminal process, and the court retained jurisdiction to hear the application despite a pending recusal.
19 Jan 2022
The Judge held the Board and ALJ are not a 'court or tribunal' for the purposes of s75 EO under US law or Hong Kong law and therefore the Master lacked jurisdiction to make the Order; in any event there was material and in part deliberate non-disclosure regarding real risks of self-incrimination and other material facts, so the Order was set aside and no re-grant was appropriate.
17 Aug 2021
The Court held that the identified questions about the application of the privilege under section 33 of the Theft Ordinance and the circumstances in which a person may be precluded from refusing disclosure in civil proceedings are of sufficient importance to be submitted for decision by the Court; the appeal was listed for hearing and a conditional stay of execution of specified paragraphs of the injunction was granted pending determination provided the applicant's affirmation remains with the Registry.