22 Mar 2021
On the facts the Official Receiver did not assume responsibility nor create a special relationship with the bankrupt; the conduct was omissions in administering estate claims and performed within the statutory framework and funding constraints; consequently no common law duty of care arose and the Plaintiff's negligence claim fails, so the claim is dismissed.
29 Mar 2018
The applicant failed to discharge the onus of adducing solid evidence of a real risk of dissipation; speculative evidence such as an undated advertisement and the lawful demand to withdraw an improper Land Registry registration did not suffice. Accordingly, the Mareva Summons was dismissed for lack of sufficient evidence of risk of dissipation.
22 May 2015
The appeal was allowed because, although the ASOC as pleaded was defective on fraudulent misrepresentation and conspiracy (failing to particularize the factual linkage between the earlier agreements and the Settlement Agreement), the proposed RASOC cured those defects; striking out was therefore inappropriate and the proper course was to grant leave to apply to reamend and stay the action, while leaving the costs order below undisturbed and awarding the respondent costs of the appeal (certificate for two counsel).
12 Jan 2015
EDS's application to file the 9th affirmation was allowed. Shum's summons to set aside the sealed summary judgment was dismissed for procedural defect because the court was functus officio; the sealed judgment could only be impugned by appeal or fresh action. Costs awarded to EDS, to be taxed if not agreed, with certificate for two counsel.
26 Mar 2001
The amendment to the original claim for HK$14,300,000 was served after the one-year period and constituted an amendment to the original claim; because no proper application to extend time under section 28 was made the amended claim is barred under section 28(1). Estoppel was not established and no extension of time was granted.
5 Jun 1987
The court held that Order 15 rule 7(2) must be read with rule 2 so that substitution of an assignee as plaintiff applies only to the assigned claim; the defendant's counterclaim remains an independent action against the assignor and the proper order was to substitute STC for the Bank in relation to the claim while restoring the Bank as defendant to the counterclaim; the master's unqualified ex parte substitution was therefore improper to the extent it extinguished the counterclaim.