23 May 2024
Leave to appeal was refused because the applicant did not demonstrate a reasonable prospect of success or any principled error in the lower court's exercise of discretion regarding the costs order; the costs award was not plainly wrong and the Court would not intervene in the exercise of discretion.
30 Apr 2024
Default judgment summons was revoked because the writ was not proved served on the defendants and the summons was prematurely issued; the statement of claim was struck out because, on assumed facts, it disclosed no reasonable cause of action, was frivolous, scandalous and an abuse of court process as the matters complained of concerned association affairs not personal negligence, and the action was dismissed; costs orders were moderated because of the plaintiff's mental health.
7 Jun 2023
The appeals were dismissed because the 2nd Defendant's settlement defence was not at least arguable—there was no unequivocal acceptance of the conditional settlement, no payment or attempt to pay, and the alleged terms were implausible—and the 3rd Defendant's contention that the mortgagee had accepted or was estopped from denying the tenancy failed on established principles; the additional evidence would not have had an important influence on the appeal and so was refused.
2 Feb 2023
Leave granted to the 1st, 2nd and 4th Defendants to file and serve their Defence out of time and default judgment refused because earlier affirmation disclosed substantive issues (status of Plaintiff's possessory title and authenticity/impact of authorization and restoration of registered owner) that require full trial; prejudice to Plaintiff was not material and could be compensated by costs; costs awarded to Plaintiff on indemnity basis and summarily assessed at HK$120,000.
6 Jun 2022
The Master lawfully exercised power under Order 3, rule 5 to extend time; the reference notes in Form 14 did not create an 'unless' order; deferral of the defence caused no substantial prejudice given overlap with related proceedings; consequently the appeal against the Master's order is dismissed as unmeritorious.
30 May 2022
Form 14 is not a peremptory 'unless' order or a court judgment or order and therefore does not attract automatic sanctions; RHC O.18 r.2(1) fixes the defence filing deadline as 28 days after the time limited for acknowledging service (effectively 42 days from service where claim endorsed), the Master had jurisdiction to grant the extension of time and the court, on rehearing, grants that extension and dismisses the appeal.
16 Dec 2021
The judge held that the case officer correctly permitted filing of affidavits, extended time where appropriate, adjourned the summoned applications and directed they be heard together with a three‑hour hearing; the appellant's appeal against that case management decision was without merit and therefore dismissed, and the appellant was ordered to pay the respondent's costs of the appeal assessed at HK$30,000.
21 Jul 2021
The court refused to stay the time for filing and service of the defence because it was necessary to determine whether other substantive defences exist and whether those defences are so intertwined with the authority issue that a preliminary trial would not materially differ from a full trial; instead the court ordered limited affidavit exchange, adjourned both summonses for substantive hearing to be heard together, and extended time to file the defence to 28 days.
18 Jan 2021
Retrospective leave to file a defence was refused because the defendant offered no good explanation for a five‑month delay and the draft defence was unarguable on its face; default judgment under Order 19 r7 was entered for the pleaded causes (breach of fiduciary duty, deceit, breach of duty of fidelity and unjust enrichment) for HK$9,037,474.68; compound interest at prime + 1% compounded yearly was awarded (pre- and post-judgment) with pre-judgment interest quantified to 9 October 2020; and the Mareva injunction was varied and continued for six months to freeze the judgment sum and accrued i…
20 May 2020
Leave to appeal was refused because the proposed grounds showed no reasonable prospect of success and no other interests of justice justified a hearing; the judge properly considered the pending striking out application as a relevant circumstance in exercising discretion under Order 77 r9 and correctly upheld the extension of time for the defendants to file a defence.