7 Aug 2025
The application for leave to appeal out of time was dismissed because the 1st Defendant did not, in substance, intend to appeal the garnishee order absolute and in any event failed to explain the nearly six month delay or advance any arguable grounds for appeal; costs of the application were awarded to the Plaintiff.
3 Aug 2023
The Court held the Judge did not err in law or in the exercise of case management discretion: the disputed issues on access and safety (Issues 2,4,5) were peripheral to the primary dispute about whether areas are common parts and could be resolved without the proposed expert evidence; the respondents failed to demonstrate relevance or necessity of the proposed expert evidence; appointment of a single joint expert on the narrow reformulated Issue 1 was appropriate; the renewed application for leave to appeal was not reasonably arguable and was refused.
19 Sept 2019
The appeal was allowed in part: the Master erred in concluding the plaintiff's disabilities did not warrant occupational therapy evidence and in suggesting relatives/common sense could replace expert assessment; leave was granted for a single joint occupational therapist/rehabilitation consultant report confined to accommodation needs, size and modifications, equipment and transport needs, and need for occupational/physiotherapy. Leave to adduce ophthalmological expert evidence was refused as premature given joint neurosurgical opinion that diplopia was permanent and the treating team's role…
27 Dec 2018
The court appointed Mr Johnathan Lai as single joint expert because the valuation required forensic accounting expertise given the complexity of the company's trading operations and financials; Mr Lai's CV demonstrated appropriate experience whereas Mr Leung lacked forensic qualifications; the court fixed a timetable (6 weeks to exchange materials and 6 weeks to complete) and allocated costs initially equally and ultimately in the cause.
17 Dec 2018
The court appointed Mr Ian Ng as single joint expert for the three landed properties because both proposed valuers were suitably qualified but Mr Ng offered a materially lower fee and reasonable timetable; the court appointed Ms Rita Lau as single joint expert for M L Ltd because the company is a straightforward property‑holding vehicle, Ms Lau (an experienced CPA) was sufficiently qualified to address the disputes, and Mr Lai’s forensic expertise and very high fee were disproportionate to the nature of the valuation required.
2 Nov 2018
Both proposed experts were suitably qualified, but Mr Lucas Lau's fee proposal identified only his employer's client(s) rather than recognising that the single joint expert and valuation report must serve both parties and their legal representatives; for that reason the court found Mr Lau unsuitable and appointed Mr Thomas Tsang as the single joint expert, directed the report by 28 November 2018 and ordered costs to be shared equally and to be in the cause.
13 Nov 2017
Adjournment of the Majority Shareholders' summons was necessary because they failed to file any supporting evidence explaining the nature of the Valuer's appointment and the basis for adducing the Cullen report; without that evidence the court could not fairly assess leave to adduce further expert evidence despite a substantial asserted valuation discrepancy. The petitioner's application for a supplemental Valuer report was dismissed because the Valuer had already addressed development potential in the final report and the petitioner's disagreement with the Valuer's opinion did not establish…
13 Nov 2017
The court adjourned the Majority Shareholders' summons to allow them to file supporting evidence about the nature of the Valuer's appointment and grounds for adducing the Cullen report, because the MS failed to file evidence; dismissed the Petitioner’s summons for a supplemental report because the Valuer had already addressed development potential and no jurisdictional or factual basis existed to order further opinion from the Valuer; allowed the amendment to the Companies' summons but adjourned that summons to a later date with costs to the Petitioner for listing failures and inadequate serv…
12 Jan 2016
The Registrar allowed plaintiffs leave to adduce expert evidence on issues 4(f) and 5(b) and allowed defendants leave on specified accounting and valuation issues after finding expert assistance necessary for disputed inter‑company accounting and valuation matters; the Registrar declined to impose the defendants' chosen single joint expert over the plaintiffs' objection, ordered separate experts for certain valuation issues (plaintiff's Colum Bancroft and defendant's Frank Yuen) with mandatory exchange, meeting and joint reporting requirements, and appointed a single joint expert (Simon Sham)…
27 Nov 2015
The tribunal held it had statutory and inherent case management power under the RHC to limit the number of expert witnesses and to direct appointment of a single joint expert per discipline per side; applying that power to the circumstances (many respondent groups, overlapping valuation issues, risk of undue delay and costs), the tribunal directed that no more than one expert witness be called by each side in the disciplines of valuation, building condition and structural assessment and gave detailed directions for selection, nomination and appointment procedures.