11 Jun 1999
The court held that the common law definition of murder, which includes intention to cause grievous bodily harm and allows secondary liability based on foresight, does not violate Articles 5 or 11 of the Hong Kong Bill of Rights Ordinance nor the Basic Law; accordingly the application for discharge under s.16 CPO was refused.
29 Jul 1998
Even without relying on the statutory presumption in section 55(2), the disclosed documentary and notified evidence, taken as a whole, would permit a reasonable jury to infer the applicant's knowledge of the contents of the boxes; therefore there is a prima facie case and the section 16 discharge application must be dismissed. The court declined to decide the constitutionality of section 55(2) as the issue was unnecessary to the decision and better determined at trial with full evidence.
23 Apr 1992
The court exercised its discretion to dismiss the application to discharge the ex parte Anton Piller and Mareva relief because there was no suggestion of dishonesty, it was not obvious that a material non‑disclosure had occurred, resolving the dispute would require combing through large volumes of disputed evidence, and the alleged failures were not sufficiently serious to warrant immediate intervention; therefore the ex parte orders should stand pending proper interlocutory challenges (such as strike‑out or fortification applications).
23 Aug 1988
Because the defendants' application to discharge the Anton Piller order was aimed mainly at enforcing the cross-undertaking as to damages and lacked the necessary urgency, and because disputed factual issues (including ownership of scaffolding) are better resolved at trial, the application to discharge the Anton Piller order must be stood over until trial; additionally, interlocutory injunction terms that cannot be practically policed pending resolution of ownership (paragraphs 1(b)-(e) and 4) should be discharged while paragraph 1(a) remains in force until trial or further order.
24 Nov 1977
The creditor failed to prove any of the matters required by Order 49B Rule 6(3): evidence did not establish unjustifiable extravagance, willful concealment, fraudulent transfer, or that the debtor retained de facto control of the transferred business; accordingly the detention could not be maintained and the debtor was discharged.