30 Sept 2010
The court held that the defendant was liable to account for and pay over the monies received on the plaintiff's behalf because the illegality/public policy defence was not established on the evidence; the counterclaim for commission was dismissed/assessed accordingly.
26 Oct 1995
Leave to appeal was refused because the applicant's grounds were generalised and unsupported, the judge's findings on facts and credibility were entitled to deference and unlikely to be overturned on appeal, and the allegation of bias lacked particulars and evidence.
19 Oct 1989
The Court affirmed liability: the July 15 taped conversation, objectively assessed in context, amounted to an instruction to buy and the defendant was liable for the Bank's actual loss of HK$300,000; the Bank failed to prove any agreement (express or adequately implied) entitling it to retain the discount as commission (HK$250,000), so that award was overturned; the trial judge's order for common fund costs was clearly wrong and replaced with party-and-party costs; the appellate court will not disturb the trial judge's factual finding on the tape absent a clear demonstration he was plainly wr…