22 Oct 2021
The tribunal correctly struck out the claim as it arose from decisions under the Legal Aid Ordinance and did not disclose a private civil cause of action, and the applicant failed to show the tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction or erred in law; therefore permission to appeal is refused under Cap.338 s.28.
16 Dec 2020
Section 69 MHO reaches acts done prior to and leading up to the making of a compulsory detention order, including medical examinations within the 7‑day period required for detention applications; accordingly the Small Claims proceedings concerning the Relevant Period fall within s.69 and must be stayed until the claimant obtains leave from the Court of First Instance under s.69, and the Adjudicator erred in refusing to stay without leave and in treating applicability as a matter requiring evidential trial in the SCT.
8 May 2017
Section 22 SFO extinguishes civil liability for a recognised exchange company for acts done in good faith in carrying out duties under section 21; the plaintiff has no viable private law claim to compel investigations or suspend trading and has not pleaded bad faith with required particulars; section 22 is constitutional and proportionate; accordingly the claim against the SEHK is struck out and dismissed.
30 Jun 2016
The summons for interlocutory injunction was dismissed because the plaintiff failed to show a viable private cause of action against the Stock Exchange and other defendants, lacked standing in most respects, produced no evidence of immediate irreparable harm, public disclosure of the expert's disqualification mitigated need for court intervention, and the orders sought were overly sweeping and disproportionate to the circumstances.
31 Mar 2015
The ASoC discloses no reasonable cause of action and is an abuse of process: the complaints are public law matters which should have been pursued by judicial review within the prescribed time limits; ss 380(1) and (3) SFO provide statutory immunity absent properly pleaded bad faith which the ASoC fails to plead; allegations of misfeasance and fraud lack the required factual particularity and subjective intent; the ASoC is prolix, vexatious and contrary to pleading rules, therefore it must be struck out and the action dismissed, with indemnity costs awarded to defendants.
18 Mar 1999
The court granted the interim relief because, on balance, the detailed undertakings offered by the respondents sufficiently protected the evidential and public interests (inspection, admissions, preservation, restrictions on use and removal), while refusal would cause real and potentially irreparable commercial harm to the respondents; accordingly the court permitted limited use and access subject to those undertakings and ordered costs against the Commissioner.