6 Jun 2023
The debtor failed to demonstrate any arguable grounds of appeal or provide evidentiary support for the asserted grounds; therefore a stay under s.104 is not justified and the application to amend the stay summons is unnecessary; the stay summons and amendment summons are dismissed.
9 Feb 2018
Given the existence of final English judgment, clear evidence that the 6th defendant holds assets in Hong Kong, strong prima facie evidence of breaches of Hong Kong freezing injunctions and a real risk of dissipation, together with the absence of any substantial defence and the plaintiff's undertaking as to damages, the balance of convenience required appointment of receivers over the 6th defendant to protect the assets and ensure effectiveness of the freezing orders.
12 Oct 2016
Leave to amend the Form 86 and to apply for judicial review was refused and the appeal dismissed because the challenged decisions were overtaken by irreversible intervening events (conferment of degrees and the applicant's retirement), the applicant had delayed and failed to use available internal grievance procedures, there was no evidence of external interference engaging Article 137, and the dispute was a non-generalised disagreement about grading within the University's appeals framework rather than a matter of public importance warranting judicial intervention.
14 Mar 2016
The judge exercised discretion to award indemnity costs to i-CABLE because the applicant, despite being alerted to a jurisdictional defect (failure to specify premises where journalistic material was located) and given opportunity to amend, proceeded without issuing a fresh or properly amended originating summons and failed to provide adequate particulars of police video materials; these circumstances rendered indemnity costs appropriate.
29 Nov 1984
The Court affirmed the judge's discretion to allow the amendments because amendment principles applicable to pleadings apply to originating process, no clear prejudice was shown that could not be remedied (eg by adjournment), and the petitions were not shown to be inevitably doomed; the judge did not err in permitting amendment without a fresh affidavit where existing material prima facie supported the amended allegation of a probable surplus. The appeal was dismissed and the refusal to strike out the petitions was affirmed.
29 Nov 1984
The Court affirmed the judge's exercise of discretion to allow amendments to the petitions and to refuse strike-out because the ordinary principles permitting amendment of originating process applied, no prejudice was shown that could not be compensated, the petitioner had prima facie material (including allegations of exclusion from management) such that the petitions were not inevitably doomed or an abuse of process, and the interlocutory stage was not the appropriate point to shut out the petitions; the court also noted that Companies Ordinance s.180(1) may materially affect the traditiona…
29 Nov 1984
The judge did not abuse his discretion in allowing the petitions to be amended; amendments to originating process should follow ordinary pleading principles and may be permitted at interlocutory stage where prejudice can be compensated and the petition is not shown to be inevitably doomed; the petitions raised triable just and equitable complaints (involuntary exclusion) and therefore should not be struck out at this stage; the court did not finally decide the effect of s.180(1) on the English rule regarding contributory locus standi but noted it could be a limiting factor.