8 Aug 2025
The court will not grant inspection under s21 absent adequate evidence of service and notice to affected banks; upon receipt of a belated but satisfactory affidavit of service and correspondence, the court may exercise its discretion to grant inspection and accordingly made the order in terms of the draft as revised.
10 Feb 2023
The court was satisfied that the applicant holds the unclaimed assets on trust, that it made reasonable efforts to contact beneficiaries, and accordingly granted the ex parte application permitting forfeiture of small-sum cash for specified clients, realization of saleable securities and deposit of proceeds into court, and ordering the payment of the remainder of the cash into court with directions for notice and procedural compliance; costs were fixed at HK$60,000.
1 Feb 2023
The court was satisfied the applicant held the assets as trustee and had taken reasonable steps to trace eight uncontactable clients; accordingly, an order under section 62 was appropriate to pay unclaimed cash and listed securities into court and to deposit the Mountbatten share certificate, and an order under section 56 was appropriate to grant the applicant power to sell or otherwise dispose (including forfeiture) of the securities of the delisted and wound-up SMI Holdings Group Limited; costs assessed at $88,053 were to be paid to the applicant out of the unclaimed cash.
23 Jun 2021
The Court refused extension of time because the applicant failed to discharge his duty to notify the court of a change of address such that his reason for delay was unsatisfactory and, critically, his intended appeal had no real prospect of success given no arguable error in the Board's decision; accordingly extension would be futile.
3 Jun 2020
The court found the threshold for a disclosure order and a gagging order was met and granted the orders against the 1st defendant; because BOComm had not been given sufficient time to respond to the ex parte application the court limited immediate relief against BOComm to a gagging order and disclosure in respect of one specified account and adjourned the remainder; on the inter partes summons, after BOComm provided information and documents, the court granted the draft order with an amendment that there be no order as to costs of the inter partes summons including costs reserved from the ex…
9 Aug 2019
Although the Court possesses jurisdiction to order disclosure from a non-party bank under the Ordinance, the exercise of that jurisdiction without giving the bank notice is exceptional and will be confined to cases where notice cannot be given or would defeat the purpose of the order; on the facts before the Court those exceptional conditions were not made out and an ex parte order was inappropriate.
29 Apr 2014
The court was satisfied the plaintiff had taken reasonable steps to locate the mortgagee and, because doubt existed as to whether the century‑old Chinese customary mortgage subsisted, granted leave under s12A(1) to pay $8,000 into court; the court ordered publication and provided the staged procedure under s12A(2) for a subsequent declaration to free the land, with no order as to costs.
19 Nov 2010
The Tribunal granted the compulsory sale because the Applicant proved by credible expert evidence that the existing buildings were structurally unsafe and beyond their design life (thus redevelopment justified), established that reasonable steps and multiple fair offers were made to acquire the Respondent's undivided share with no substantive response or proof of representation, and demonstrated that the EUV valuations and proposed auction reserve (HK$72,000,000) were reasonable; accordingly an order for sale by public auction with nominated trustees and ancillary directions was warranted.
7 Mar 2006
Leave to appeal was refused because the default judgment was regular (the master had ordered a 28-day extension and warned of judgment), the plaintiff failed to establish any binding agreement to suspend proceedings or to provide timely substantiating tax returns so the assessments were final under the IRO, and the plaintiff lacked a real prospect of success; absent error in principle the appellate court will not disturb the judge's discretion.
3 Jun 1983
Although the Master’s initial O.86 application was misconceived and the judge in chambers should have called counsel for the plaintiff on the appeal, the O.14 summons was not an abuse of process nor prejudicial by short notice; on the merits the guarantee covered liability for the purchaser's default (including damages) and there was no arguable defence by the 2nd Defendant, so the appeal is dismissed and judgment for the plaintiff is maintained.