1 Nov 2012
The representation order was set aside because the plaintiff commenced the action as representative without the requisite locus at the time of the writ; Order 15 r.15 cannot be used to cure lack of locus and therefore the proceedings were a nullity, justifying allowing the setting aside application and dismissing the ancillary account claim.
14 Jan 2011
On the evidence the plaintiff established a good arguable case that the 1st defendant owed duties to account and there was an objective real risk that, once he received his share of sale proceeds and given his residence outside Hong Kong, he could dissipate assets; balancing convenience and quantum, the court granted a Mareva injunction restraining dissipation up to HK$2,500,000 subject to plaintiff's undertaking as to damages and usual liberties for living and legal expenses, and declined to order disclosure.
30 Mar 2009
Security for costs was refused because, despite the defendant's apparent impecuniosity, there were strong grounds to doubt the correctness of the trial judge's order (notably the lack of clarity how the figure was reached and the appropriateness of a partial account), and the family context favoured resolution other than by an order for security; accordingly the balance of justice did not favour granting security for costs.