19 Dec 2024
Leave to appeal was refused because the applicant failed to demonstrate any reasonable prospect of success or other compelling reason under s63A(2); the court had considered and rejected the applicant's reasons and the applicant did not identify any error in the decision.
12 Jan 2024
Plaintiff failed to establish a proprietary claim against NN Hong Kong because the PPSA was between Hu and VIP (NN Hong Kong was not a contracting party), Hu had not rescinded the voidable contract nor made counter‑restitution, and there was therefore no proprietary interest or trust duty established against NN Hong Kong; consequently there was no serious issue to be tried against NN Hong Kong and the proprietary injunction was discharged and the action stayed to permit rectification if possible.
26 Sept 2023
Defendant has not demonstrated an arguable appeal with reasonable prospects of success on the estoppel or force majeure defences or shown any palpable error in the judgment; absent an arguable appeal, the mandatory threshold for granting a stay is not met and the Stay Summons must be dismissed.
21 Jul 2023
The Tribunal refused leave because the respondent failed to satisfy the statutory threshold for leave: the decision to exercise case management discretion and to combine consideration of summary judgment and a full trial was within the Tribunal's reasonable ambit; the respondent's factual case of an oral unconditional waiver/promissory estoppel lacked objective evidence and credibility; therefore there was no reasonable prospect of success on appeal and no basis to stay execution.
9 Jun 2023
Both estoppel and force majeure defences were unarguable on the evidence and legal principles; defendant's admissions and affirmations established liability for the admitted sums; summary judgment was therefore appropriate and was entered for the plaintiff for RMB162,200,000 plus interest; the defendant's appeal was dismissed and costs were awarded to the plaintiff on an indemnity basis under the contract.
15 Mar 2023
The abatement clause is triggered by events affecting the occupation or accessibility of the physical premises; community‑wide reductions in customer numbers from social unrest and the pandemic did not render the premises unfit or inaccessible nor make the landlord's obligations radically different, so the clause was not engaged and the leases were not frustrated; summary judgment for the landlord therefore had no error.
29 Jul 2022
On the facts the defendant tenant failed to establish that COVID-19 and social unrest frustrated the lease; commercial unprofitability and reduced footfall do not meet the high threshold for frustration; the tenant also failed to discharge the heavy burden of proving it would be wholly unreasonable for the landlord to retain the lease so as to deny the landlord enforcement of rent; accordingly the frustration defence is not arguable and the mitigation/affirmation defence fails on the evidence.
11 May 2022
The review is dismissed because the tribunal correctly found the tenant had not returned vacant possession (retained keys), the lease did not impose a landlord duty to repair or replace the ACs and the alleged oral promises did not give rise to enforceable obligations or promissory estoppel, the deposit could not be unilaterally applied to pay rent, the statutory amendments for subdivided units did not apply to the unit, and COVID‑related delay did not excuse the tenant from yielding possession; accordingly the original order requiring delivery of vacant possession and payment of rent was uph…
20 Jan 2022
The abatement clause is confined to events affecting the premises themselves and to matters with a connection to the landlord's obligations; it does not extend to ordinary business downturns or pure economic loss caused by reduced footfall from social unrest or the pandemic; the defendant failed to show the premises were rendered unfit for use or inaccessible and failed to show frustration because performance was not rendered fundamentally or radically different, therefore the defendant's defences had no real prospect and summary judgment must stand.
20 Jan 2022
The abatement clause was construed as addressing events that affect the physical condition, use or access to the premises and not pure economic loss from reduced customers; the defendant failed to show the premises were rendered unfit or inaccessible or that any specified statutory closing/condemnation event occurred; frustration did not apply because the obligations were not rendered radically different and the extraordinary circumstances produced at most economic hardship; accordingly the defendant had no arguable defence and summary judgment stands.