5 May 2022
The application was dismissed because it breached the mandatory procedural requirement of Order 24 r 7(3) by lacking timely affidavit support and because the alleged secret profits were not pleaded and therefore not relevant for discovery, making the application premature.
16 Apr 2020
The judge refused both proposed variations because the existing no costs order appropriately balanced the parties' respective degrees of success and dealt with interlocutory costs; it was premature and impractical to award or tax the Defendants' costs of the Qilu Claim now given the possibility of an amendment and the need to consider costs in the context of the whole action; accordingly the summons for variation was dismissed and the costs order nisi made absolute, with the Defendants ordered to pay the Plaintiffs $8,000 for the variation application.
24 Jan 2018
Leave to amend was granted because the petition, once amended to cite s327(4)(a) Cap 32 and to plead the three core jurisdictional requirements, put the petition in order; the strike-out summons was justified by the original erroneous statutory citation but costs for the summons were limited to the period before the petitioner issued the amendment summons (up to 9 January 2018); a validation order was granted on terms but the court refused the onerous request for ongoing provision of monthly bank statements and instead ordered provision of quarterly and annual reports from the period ending 3…
1 Jun 2016
The statement of claim was struck out because on its face it did not disclose a reasonable cause of action for breach of confidence: the confidential information was pleaded in vague, open‑ended and non‑specific terms; there was no sufficiently pleaded unauthorised use or disclosure of particular confidential information; the pleading contained many irrelevant allegations of duty of care and unpleaded losses; and no amendment or further particulars were proffered to cure these fundamental defects.
28 Oct 2009
Employment claims for arrears of salary and for damages for constructive dismissal are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Labour Tribunal under the Labour Tribunal Ordinance and are not actionable in the High Court; Order 12 rule 8 does not permit the High Court to retain jurisdiction over such claims; the misrepresentation claim is not a matter for strike out because statements of intention can, in proper circumstances, ground misrepresentation and the Labour Tribunal lacks jurisdiction over tort claims of this nature; amendments to add misrepresentation and collateral contract claims…
5 Dec 2001
The court held that service of Fortune Navigation SA at its Hong Kong offices and by personal service on its director was permitted because it achieved the underlying purpose of the rules (bringing notice to the respondent), and therefore no application for substituted service in Liberia was necessary.
12 Feb 2001
Leave to appeal was refused because the applicant failed to show the complaint was sufficiently arguable, the defect was curable by amendment, and the issue was interlocutory and not determinative of the action, so leave should not be granted.
26 Jul 2000
The court treated Tridant's claim for interest as compensatory damages for finance charges caused by Mansion's repudiation, fixed interest to run from 1 January 1996 at prime+1% until 14 June 2000 and judgment rate thereafter, awarded specified pre- and post-judgment interest sums, and ordered costs largely in favour of Tridant against Mansion Holdings (with a 5% assessed cost award to Mansion Fire for the Temporary Works Contract); interlocutory and specific application costs were ordered against Mansion where bad faith or unjustified conduct was found.
24 Feb 1997
The petition against the third respondent disclosed no reasonable cause of action and was properly struck out; the third respondent is entitled to recover costs of his striking out application to be taxed if not agreed; the court will not make specific directions capping recoverable costs by date or allow a higher scale absent justification, leaving assessment of necessity and reasonableness to the Taxing Master.
11 Mar 1987
The Court held that the pleaded facts supported a reasonable inference that the 6th defendant had knowledge of the fraudulent conspiracy and therefore the amended points of claim disclosed a reasonable cause of action; the appeal was dismissed.