11 May 2026
The application to admit further evidence was refused because the applicant failed the first Ladd v Marshall requirement: the documents were in existence before the strike-out hearing and the applicant did not show she had exercised reasonable diligence to obtain or explain non-production at that hearing; therefore the summons for further evidence was dismissed and costs awarded to respondent.
6 May 2026
The Judge properly exercised his discretion to strike out the Form 86 because the applicant failed to produce the alleged 14 October 2020 decision, the Board and the DOJ confirmed no such decision existed, and no error was shown to disturb the strike out.
30 Apr 2026
Because the Main Decision effectively held that the plaintiff had no tenable claim against the intended defendants and treated the joinder/amendment issue as akin to a strike out, the Order summarily determined the plaintiff's substantive rights against those parties and therefore falls within Order 59 rule 21(1)(a); accordingly no leave to appeal is required and the plaintiff may appeal as of right; costs of the Leave Summons are to be in the cause of the appeal with a certificate for two counsel.
24 Apr 2026
The master correctly dismissed the summons because a District Court master lacks jurisdiction to grant the mandatory/injunctive transfer sought; the master's summary costs award was reasonable and not an error of law; the deputy judge dismissed the appeal and ordered the plaintiff to pay the defendants' assessed costs.
30 Mar 2026
The court held the SPC judgment was a final and conclusive adjudication on the Validity Issue and therefore res judicata/issue estoppel applied to preclude relitigation in the Hong Kong actions; accordingly the defendants’ pleaded defences and counterclaims as to the validity of the Share Transfer Agreement were struck out and declaratory relief was granted that the transfer was invalid and that Full Billion remains an 80% shareholder of Hung Kong; separately, Yau’s claims asserting beneficial ownership were struck out as an abuse of process under Henderson v Henderson because he could and sh…
24 Mar 2026
Leave granted to amend petition to add allegations in §§15A and 15C-F (with proposed §15B deleted) because the proposed 'secret profit' allegations were not necessarily pleas of fraud requiring particulars at this stage and were relevant to the dispute; however multiple passages in the Petitioner’s and third parties' witness statements and parts of the Points of Reply were struck out because they introduced unpleaded causes of action, relied on an irrelevant Settlement Agreement or otherwise sought to use evidence to expand the pleadings without prior amendment; limited evidence and pleadings…
24 Mar 2026
Leave to appeal out of time was refused because the proposed grounds were devoid of merit: the defendant failed to apply for specific discovery or to depose particulars of the alleged crucial documents or to show how they would afford a real defence; the judge correctly found no real or bona fide defence and correctly dismissed the appeal against summary judgment and struck out the counterclaim.
2 Mar 2026
On the balance of probabilities the sole proprietor Mr Wong had authorized the commencement of the action in the business name prior to commencement; therefore the proceedings were not a nullity and the striking out summons must be dismissed; where authority is in issue the court may allow cross-examination and require proof of consent by those suing in a business name.
27 Feb 2026
The court interpreted para 6 of the Order as permitting only additional expert evidence responsive to the defendant’s expert on the second issue (susceptibility to undue influence); because the defendant’s expert did not rely on ‘delusion’ for the second issue and pleadings did not plead delusion as a basis for undue influence, substantial parts of the plaintiff’s experts’ reports dealing solely with delusion and parts addressing Father’s capacity were beyond the permitted scope and were therefore expunged, while material discussing the pleaded medical conditions (vascular MCI and depression)…
30 Jan 2026
The court held it was unarguable that the Crown's right of action accrued in the 1920s; legal principle and statute require that where a reversionary/future interest exists the right to recover accrues only when that interest falls into possession (e.g. by surrender, re-entry or determination of the lease). Therefore time began to run for Lot 388RP on 10 Sept 1976, for Lot 376C on 21 Sept 1982 and for Former Lot 376RP on 14 Jan 2019; the defendant's counterclaim is not time-barred, summary judgment is appropriate and the plaintiff's claim discloses no reasonable cause of action and is struck…