27 Nov 2025
On the evidence, particularly CCTV and inspection of the plaintiff's shoes, the court was satisfied there was no standing water or condensation at the scene and that the plaintiff slipped due to worn footwear; the defendant did not breach its duty and therefore the plaintiff's claim fails; costs awarded to defendant on a costs order nisi basis.
24 May 2024
The High Court accepted the credibility of prosecution witnesses and the unedited CCTV evidence showing the appellant intentionally obstructed a government road, causing traffic disruption for over half an hour without lawful excuse; on that basis the prosecution proved the offence beyond reasonable doubt and the fine of HK$8,000 was a proportionate sentence, so both conviction and sentence were upheld.
14 Jun 2022
The conviction was upheld because the CCTV and witness evidence established that the appellant did not stop and look before entering the junction and thus failed in her duty of care; that failure was causally linked to the collision, and the prosecution proved careless driving beyond reasonable doubt.
30 Nov 2017
On the balance of probabilities the CCTV evidence and police-recorded statements established the defendant intentionally kicked and pushed the plaintiff causing right foot injuries; the plaintiff was performing her duties, bore no contributory negligence, and is entitled to damages with specified deductions, interest and costs.
26 Jan 2017
The appellant's pleas were voluntary, informed and supported by the pleaded facts and CCTV evidence; counsel had advised the appellant including on self-defence law, there was no coercion or misrepresentation rendering the pleas a nullity, and the magistrate's conduct did not render the process unfair; therefore the convictions stand and the appeal is dismissed.
21 Apr 2016
Summary judgment was refused because there are reasonably arguable triable issues as to (1) the proper construction of the MA-Contract (including the defined term 'Shipment' and the scope of exclusions) and (2) the primary factual dispute whether the defendant received the Diamond; accordingly the defendant was given unconditional leave to defend and the application was dismissed with costs in the cause.
21 Jul 2015
The 2nd defendant failed to demonstrate any defence with a real prospect of success and provided an unsatisfactory, implausible explanation for the defaults; coupled with prolonged delay, deliberate inaction until enforcement/winding-up threatened, and resultant prejudice to the plaintiff and the public policy of finality, the court exercised its discretion to refuse to set aside the interlocutory and final default judgments and dismissed the 2nd defendant's applications with costs.