4 Aug 2017
Leave to appeal was refused because the appellant's challenge attacked the Adjudicator's factual findings and credibility assessments rather than demonstrating any error of law or jurisdictional defect; there was no arguable point of law or reasonable prospects of success.
7 Jul 2006
The Court held the Deputy Presiding Officer erred in law by failing to give proper regard to relevant evidence and by relying on irrational reasoning in rejecting the claimant's case on the 10% bonus; accordingly the finding that no agreement existed was set aside and the matter (Item D) was remitted to the Labour Tribunal for a trial de novo before another presiding officer.
24 Mar 2005
The court found no binding May 2003 agreement due to unreliable and inconsistent evidence from the Plaintiff's witnesses and documentary evidence showing negotiations rather than agreement. The court accepted Mr. Ho's evidence and documentary support that a binding agreement was reached on 26 August 2003 between Mr. Ho and Ms. Leung that commission would be US$0.15 per unit for units accepted/duly delivered, and that this agreement was enforceable under the exception to the rule on past consideration because the transfer had been made at the defendants' request and with an understanding payme…
15 Oct 2004
The Defendant’s account was inherently unbelievable given the clear and contemporaneous wording of the signed agreement and supporting documents; he failed to raise a believable triable defence under Order 86, therefore the Master’s summary judgment for specific performance was correctly affirmed.
11 Dec 2001
The court found, on the balance of probabilities, there was no agreement that the Defendant would accept payment by 30 instalments; the correspondence amounted to an offer or proposal only. Because liabilities and quantum were undisputed, the Defendant was entitled to set-off the counterclaim against the Plaintiff's claim, resulting in a judgment for the Defendant for the balance, with interest and costs as ordered.
11 Jun 1999
The correspondence between the parties, read as a whole, explicitly and repeatedly described the dealings as "subject to contract" and stated that nothing would be binding until a formal Agreement for Sale and Purchase had been executed and exchanged; no exceptional circumstances or estoppel were established to displace that prima facie meaning, therefore no legally binding agreement existed and the s.12 Originating Summons was not properly constituted and must be dismissed.