27 Jan 2012
The Statement of Claim, taken as a whole including Paragraph 26 claiming alternative damages for delay, is equivocal as to whether the Plaintiff accepted the Defendant's repudiation; therefore the appeal had no reasonable prospects of success and leave to appeal was refused.
15 Oct 2009
The Master’s refusal was varied: the first two interrogatories requiring disclosure of whether subsidiaries made profits and the amounts were refused as unnecessary and unlikely to materially assist the determination (if plaintiff's construction succeeds the profits are irrelevant; if it fails the plaintiff loses); the third interrogatory about the HK$4,931,348 intra-group balance was allowed as potentially relevant and proportionate.
20 Sept 2002
The Statement of Claim, read sensibly as a whole, pleaded that Foo Yan was the plaintiff's employer and alleged breaches giving rise to injury in the course of employment; consequently the default interlocutory and subsequent assessment judgments quantified Foo Yan's employer liability under the ECO, the insurer had sufficient notice under s.43(2)(b), and therefore the defendant insurer (successor to Provincial) was liable to pay the Judgment Sum and taxed costs sought by the plaintiff.