7 Jan 2025
Leave to appeal was refused because the proposed appeal had no reasonable prospect of success; the claims were objectively frivolous or vexatious and therefore a costs order against the claimant was justified under s73B(3)(a); there were no special circumstances to award indemnity costs, so costs were assessed on a party-and-party basis at HK$100,000 (DCEO 1/2024) and HK$110,000 (DCEO 2/2024).
2 Aug 2024
The court struck out and dismissed both claims because the claimant failed to plead which provisions/scope of the Sex Discrimination Ordinance applied and did not plead material facts to show the conduct occurred within an actionable statutory scope; objectively the pleaded material did not disclose sexual conduct or targeting such that a reasonable person would anticipate the claimant would be offended, and parts of the pleadings were scandalous or vexatious; the defects were incurable so strike‑out and dismissal were appropriate, with costs to respondents.
26 Jul 2006
The court struck out all claims against Lai: defamation claims based on the complaint letter or EOC witness statements were plainly unarguable because the statements were either absolutely privileged as made for the EOC investigation or, in any event, the plaintiff could not establish credible alternative source and was caught by the implied undertaking; SDO causes of action were time barred under s86(1) and the court would not exercise the s86(3) discretion to extend time because the discrimination and sexual harassment claims lacked merit, the harassment allegations were not substantiated,…