29 Apr 2026
The appeal was dismissed because the Land Tribunal had adjudicated the defendant liable and ordered costs which were assessed; the absolute charging order was registered; the plaintiff provided detailed and supported calculations showing the outstanding debt exceeded the 400,000 HKD deposit; and there was no convincing evidence or lawful basis to set aside the sale order.
8 Oct 2025
Leave to appeal was refused because the respondent’s case lacked a reasonable prospect of success given serial and last‑minute defaults, the tenancy clause excluding landlord liability, and binding authority that rent covenants are independent and s.21F(1A) limits relief for repeat defaulters; accordingly the writ of possession was not set aside.
24 Apr 2025
Leave to apply for judicial review was dismissed because no reviewable decision by the Bailiff's Office had been made, the applicant failed to identify any public law grounds as required by Order 53 rule 3, the claim was hypothetical and amounted to a fishing expedition, and the court would not exercise its discretion to grant relief even if grounds were identified.
28 Nov 2024
The defendant failed to identify any arguable error in the impugned order; the registry‑issued writs are not appealable judicial decisions under Order 58; the proposed fresh evidence relates to execution matters and does not satisfy Ladd v Marshall's materiality requirement; the subpoena application is irrelevant to appeal permission. Therefore all applications are dismissed and costs awarded to the plaintiff.
28 Aug 2024
The Order was clear and served pursuant to the Service Order; the defendant did not comply with paragraphs 2 and 3 by the deadline and offered no explanation. The plaintiff proved beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant knowingly breached the Order, warranting committal. The court ordered a warrant for arrest but suspended execution if the defendant complies with paragraph 3 within 14 days from the decision.
8 Jul 2024
Order 58 did not provide a basis to appeal the registry-issued writs because those writs were not decisions of hearing officers but registry issuances based on earlier orders; the defendant had no proper or timely basis to challenge the underlying hearing officer orders (previous appeals were dismissed or the proposed appeals were substantially delayed); absent evidence that the plaintiff instructed or interfered with the sheriff, the plaintiff is not liable for the sheriff's execution of the writs. Accordingly the defendant's applications/appeals were without merit and were dismissed and cos…
27 Mar 2024
The application for leave to apply for judicial review was dismissed because the matters complained of were either decided by a judicial order made on evidence and submissions (remediable by appeal) or were procedural points that could have been raised in the underlying possession proceedings; the applicant failed to identify reasonably arguable public law grounds for review and the writ was represented by the respondent as an official sealed copy with the original filed with the Bailiff Section.
14 Aug 2023
The consent Stay of Execution related only to the then‑pending Court of Appeal appeal and lapsed on dismissal of that appeal on 19 January 2022; therefore it was irrelevant to the ex parte leave application in January 2023 and non‑disclosure of a lapsed order was not material; Tse's affirmation was factually correct in context; the statutory notice requirements under HKCP §45/3/3 were satisfied; accordingly the Writ of Possession was validly obtained and the Defendant's appeal to set it aside failed.
19 May 2023
Extension of time refused because delay of over five months was excessive, the applicant failed to provide an adequate explanation (service issues and legal aid application did not justify the delay), she had no real prospect of success on re-hearing, and granting extension would prejudice the plaintiff given possession had been executed; accordingly the out‑of‑time appeal was not permitted and costs awarded to the plaintiff.
26 Sept 2022
The application for leave to judicial review was dismissed because the Form 86 failed to set out the required grounds in breach of Order 53 (rules 3(2) and 6(1)), and the subject matter (repossession by writ of possession in DCCJ 5143/2021) was not amenable to judicial review as the proper forum to challenge the repossession is the underlying DCCJ action.