24 Oct 2025
The court confirmed the costs order nisi that Chen HQ shall bear the costs of the Appeal and the Striking Out Application, granted a certificate for two counsel for both the SHDs and Jinan Group, and directed that the costs be summarily assessed on the papers.
2 Apr 2025
The court refused to strike out the claim because the Statement of Claim, read as a whole, sufficiently pleaded the elements of causing loss by unlawful means based on alleged breaches of the defendant’s duties to HKJC (not deceit), including making the alleged representations, interference, intention to injure as a means to benefit a friend, and pleaded damages; disputed facts and matters of reliance are for trial. The Discovery Application became unnecessary after the defendant’s supplemental disclosure but the defendant is ordered to pay the plaintiff’s costs of the discovery application d…
31 Jul 2024
Leave to appeal was refused because the defendant abandoned most grounds, the two remaining grounds (2(2) and 5) have no real prospects of success as they either relied on disputed factual matters requiring trial (status under Cayman law and weight of the Maples Register) or misconceived irrelevance arguments; the confidentiality leave was not pursued and an oral adjournment was properly refused as late and untenable; indemnity costs were awarded because the defendant's conduct was abusive and caused wasted costs and court resources.
8 Dec 2023
The application for extension was refused because the defendant offered no reasonable explanation for the 14‑day late filing, the proposed grounds had no real prospect of success (factual disputes and forgery allegations require trial), limitation was misconstrued and no clear prejudice from delay was proved; the hearing officer's costs order of HKD 30,000 was not an error and stands.
29 Sept 2022
The plaintiffs have locus to commence the Better Administration Action: as members, some as Executive Committee members and significant donors they possess an interest materially greater than ordinary members of the public; the court's parens patriae jurisdiction extends to charitable corporations and is not confined to the Secretary for Justice or s57A trust proceedings; accordingly the striking out application is dismissed.
20 Jul 2022
On the uncontradicted evidence the plaintiff and his family established continuous exclusive factual possession and animus possidendi of the Subject Land for over 20 years prior to the writ; therefore plaintiff acquired possessory title and the registered owner's right to recover possession was barred by Limitation Ordinance ss7(2) and 17 before commencement; the Government resumption did not abate the live dispute between plaintiff and defendant regarding historic possessory title and entitlement to resumption compensation, and the striking out application was dismissed on merits.
13 Apr 2022
The court held that costs should follow the event: the Defendants succeeded in striking out the Plaintiffs' claim, and there was no basis to depart from the starting point of full indemnity of costs by the Plaintiffs; accordingly the costs order nisi was varied to require the Plaintiffs to pay the costs of the Action to the Defendants (to be taxed if not agreed). The court refused to reduce liability to 50% and refused a certificate for counsel in respect of the costs of the Action, although a certificate for one counsel was granted for the Variation Summons only.
9 Nov 2020
On proper construction clauses 9(A)(d) and 9(B)(35) of the DMC imposed positive and separate management obligations on the Manager to grant consent and to exercise that power reasonably; there is no general 'No Damages Doctrine' barring damages claims in this context and the applicant has an arguable cause of action for damages, so the striking out application was not plainly sustainable and leave to appeal was refused.
17 Jul 2020
The summons was dismissed because it was misconceived and unsupported by law, was filed late with no evidence of DOJ consent to vacate the hearing, would duplicate and waste resources given a pending substantive hearing before a Judge, and the applicant demonstrated no prejudice; costs were awarded to the respondent summarily assessed at $4,500.
13 May 2020
The Court held the pleaded Relevant Pleas were not plainly unarguable: directors' approval and accounting records (AFS and directors' representations) are evidence but not conclusive as a matter of law; approval by directors (or adoption of AFS by shareholders) does not necessarily preclude liability for breach of fiduciary duty where transactions may have been for improper purposes or not in the company's best interest; accordingly the strike‑out was inappropriate and leave to amend (proprietary tracing claim) should be granted and the actions may be tried together.