10 Apr 2026
The appeal is dismissed because the applicant failed to identify any specific error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Leave Decision; bare and general assertions about risk do not constitute viable grounds to overturn a refusal of leave, and the Court will not re-assess the Board's factual determinations or admit new issues without leave to adduce fresh evidence.
8 Dec 2025
The Court was satisfied that the criteria in Order 62, rule 8B(1)(a) were met and therefore the Plaintiffs' application for a wasted costs order against the Legal Representatives should proceed to the second stage under Order 62, rule 8B(1)(b) in respect of specified applications and grounds; the Court directed the second stage to be dealt with on paper with leave for one final round of evidence and/or submissions by the Legal Representatives and reserved costs.
1 Dec 2025
The contributories' new evidence application, filed without prior permission in breach of PD 4.1 para 15 and late, was refused; having regard to the work done, the lateness and the urgency and duplication of manpower, the court summarily assessed and awarded costs to the petitioner at reduced figures of $157,000 for the leave application and $107,295 for the new evidence application, payable forthwith by the contributories.
10 Jan 2023
Leave to appeal and permission to adduce fresh evidence are refused because the Husband failed the primary Ladd v Marshall threshold (no satisfactory explanation why the AIA surrender documents and IRD confirmation were not obtained or disclosed before trial), he did not show a reasonable prospect of success or that the first-instance findings were plainly wrong, and therefore the summons is dismissed with costs to the Wife.
11 Oct 2022
Leave to appeal and the application to adduce post‑hearing letters were dismissed. The court held the judge did not err in refusing to stay the Hong Kong Actions: exclusive jurisdiction clauses were enforceable absent strong reasons; submission of claims in the PRC reorganisation did not bar pursuit of contractual remedies in Hong Kong; the Reply Letter did not materially affect the judge’s discretionary assessment; and the Administrator required leave to appeal under Order 59 r21(1)(a).
15 Nov 2021
The Court held that the applicant failed to identify any arguable public law error in the Board's decision; the challenge was confined to factual disputes and credibility findings which the court will not re-assess on judicial review; the Board's decision displayed no error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality and satisfied the enhanced Wednesbury test, therefore leave to apply for judicial review was properly refused and the appeal is dismissed.
13 Sept 2021
Given the amendments to the Notices of Appeal, applications to adduce additional evidence and the existence of overlapping bankruptcy appeals, the Court exercised its discretion and ordered further security limited to the costs attributable to those changes. Taking account of prior payments and overlap that mitigated additional exposure, the Court fixed further security at HK$150,000 in total (HK$75,000 each debtor).
11 Jul 2019
The Court dismissed the leave applications: the Tribunal applied the correct Siu test and the correct standard (balance of probabilities), its factual assessments based on site inspection and available evidence were lawful, the fresh land search records did not create a reasonable prospect of success on appeal, and there was no other interest of justice to permit appeal.
29 Jan 2018
Res judicata barred the debtor from re‑arguing matters already determined in the HCSD and CACV proceedings; the additional background evidence failed the Re Wiemer / Ladd v Marshall threshold as it was within the debtor's knowledge and could have been produced earlier; and even if admitted it did not establish a bona fide dispute on substantial grounds, therefore a bankruptcy order was appropriate.
22 Dec 2015
The trial judge (upheld by the Court of Appeal and this Court) was entitled to find, on the totality of contemporaneous documents and conduct and the lack of a credible explanation for omission of declarations of trust in 2005 and 2006, that the father intended to transfer the beneficial interest in the contested shares to the wife as a gift; no exceptional legal error or miscarriage of justice was shown that would justify overturning concurrent factual findings, and the application to adduce fresh evidence on appeal failed the Ladd v Marshall test.