3 Dec 2025
Leave to apply for judicial review was dismissed because the applicant did not establish sufficient grounds for leave under the applicable test for judicial review leave.
29 Mar 2019
The court approved the proposed amendments to the recitals and the omission of paragraphs 1 and 2 of the original order, accepted the amended Annex A and Annex B orders as proposed by RSRB, approved Annex C as amended, and warned that a party who unreasonably refuses to accept reasonable directions may be penalised by a costs order if forced to bring further proceedings.
4 Oct 2018
The court held the central issue—the existence of the alleged oral agreement—was disputed and concerned credibility; therefore the matter could not be determined on the papers and must proceed to a substantive hearing with viva voce evidence under Order 28 rule 4, with directions for filing evidence and trial preparation.
21 Dec 2017
Applying the principles of relevance, necessity and the duty of full and frank disclosure, the court ordered disclosure of company bank statements and specific documentary evidence that are within the respondent's control and directly relevant to his assets and income (including S bank statements, certain Hang Seng/S account statements, pension documentation, loan details and statement of agent accounts), but refused requests that were fishing or unduly burdensome (notably detailed recipient lists of prizes and exhaustive agent-level membership records). The court required parties to agree te…
3 Aug 2017
Because the parties disagreed principally on the timetable and the proposed directions included dates that had already passed, the court refused to adopt the proposed directions, prolonged the timetable and referred the matter back for fresh directions to be framed prospectively.
6 Jul 2017
The court exercised its discretion, permitting expert handwriting evidence in respect of the five documents in the summons alleged to bear the 1st defendant's signature because there is a live dispute of forgery that expert opinion could materially assist; refusing it for LRMJ 7 and LRMJ 28 as disproportionate or unlikely to assist given the evidence; and adjourning the application for LRMJ 29 and LRMJ 37 sine die to allow defendants time to respond as those documents were raised later.
27 Oct 2014
The court exercised its discretion to adjourn the trial but ordered the first defendant to submit within 28 days to a joint medical examination by medical professionals appointed by the plaintiff and herself for the specified purpose of determining whether she is fit to attend trial in person in Hong Kong or by video conferencing; a directions hearing was fixed to manage the case and the trial refixing was to be done in consultation with counsel diaries.
1 Nov 2011
The court held that although the general principle is that the party seeking an extension should bear its costs, the particular context — the hospital delay in providing medical records, the joint obligation to file the written application under PD 18.2, and correspondence involving broader issues — made it inappropriate to order the applicant to pay the respondent's costs; accordingly the nisi costs order was made absolute (costs in the cause) and the respondent was ordered to pay the applicant's costs of the hearing of HK$2,000 within 14 days.
4 May 2009
Wholesale discovery and broad interrogatories were unnecessary and disproportionate; investigation limited to whether the 1st Defendant received reports of the two prior accidents, whether the 1st Defendant informed the 2nd Defendant, and the 2nd Defendant's reply; witness statements to be provided within fixed timetables (1st Defendant 28 days, 2nd Defendant 42 days) and next CMC fixed for 22 June 2009 at 2:30 pm.
27 Sept 2005
Because the issues raised could not be satisfactorily determined on the face of the originating process, the court exercised its case management jurisdiction to order pleadings, discovery and directions for supplemental witness statements, and ordered the costs of the hearing to be in the cause.