10 Apr 2026
The court found the defendant not credible but concluded the plaintiff nevertheless failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that the six disputed cash loans were made on the pleaded dates due to lack of corroborating evidence; the defendant had admitted owing HK$143,600 which the court ordered to be paid together with costs.
5 Jan 2023
The appeals were dismissed and the summonses to amend refused because the trial judge's findings on the validity of the guarantees and the quantum of indebtedness were supported by the evidence and not plainly wrong; the proposed amendments were late, misconceived and barred by prior procedural rulings and admissions; and the statutory stay caused by a late legal aid application was properly lifted given the defendants' conduct and the practical position of the companion appeal.
26 May 2016
The court accepted that the application raised a reasonably arguable contention that the applicant may have been wrongly treated as having made an admission of knowledge of the drugs, such that a substantial and grave injustice could have arisen; accordingly a hearing on the leave application was directed to be fixed.
18 May 2006
The appeal was dismissed because the Master did not abuse or misapply his discretion: awarding interest at the judgment rate from the date of the writ under section 48 was within discretion given the plaintiff's claim for interest to the writ date and absence of inconsistency, there was no pleaded admission or unequivocal written admission to justify Order 27 relief, and the Master's costs split (half paid, half in the cause) was reasonable given partial success for each side.
28 May 2001
The defendants' 15 September 2000 letter was an open statement of their case and constituted an admission of the sum US$534,042.15; the defendants failed to particularise or provide evidence of any specific deductions under Order 14 and their alleged liabilities were speculative; accordingly part judgment was entered for that admitted sum with interest and costs.
14 May 1996
Conviction was upheld because the applicant's cautioned statement containing an admission provided sufficient evidence of theft; the later payment of $131,000 did not undo the completed offence; sentencing was reduced to reflect the payment but, absent a trial judge finding that the payment fully compensated the employer, the applicant was given the benefit of the doubt and the total sentence was reduced to 15 months concurrent imprisonment.
1 Dec 1972
The convictions stand because the admissions/confessions were corroborated by independent evidence (the parcel contents and the roll of pink toilet paper found on the appellant), and there was no compelling reason to find the statements were involuntary or to disturb the magistrate's factual findings.