25 Apr 2025
Refusal of the out‑of‑time leave to appeal because the applicant had an excessive unexplained delay, failed to provide credible supporting evidence or to pinpoint errors in the judgment, thereby lacking a real prospect of success, and because granting an extension would prejudice the plaintiff.
11 Nov 2024
Petitioner satisfied the statutory requirements for a bankruptcy petition. The debtor failed to produce substantial, specific and credible evidence to show the repayment agreement was forged or that there existed a bona fide dispute as to liability; contemporaneous WhatsApp negotiations, the parties' conduct, four payments by the debtor and prior admissions supported the existence and signing of the agreement. The unauthorised third opposing affidavit was properly struck out. Consequently a bankruptcy order was warranted and costs were awarded to the petitioner.
4 Nov 2024
The stay applications were dismissed because the defendant failed to establish arguable or strong grounds of appeal and failed to show the appeal would be rendered nugatory without a stay; furthermore the garnishee order against Henik was not stayed because the relevant shares had largely been sold and no real prejudice would result to the defendant.
14 Oct 2024
The summonses were dismissed because the applications were made late with inadequate explanations for the delay, the sought documents were not relevant to the defendant's pleaded defence (which disputed only the dates, not the existence or contents of the promissory notes), and there was insufficient merit to justify ordering production; costs were awarded to the plaintiff.
1 Feb 2024
The court held that the experts must meet further without prejudice and prepare a joint report in accordance with Master Hui's Order, refused the plaintiff's proposed limitation confining experts solely to materials in their prior reports, refused the defendants' attempt to revert to the earlier February 2022 regime, extended deadlines to allow compliance, and awarded the costs of the summonses to the defendants in the cause; experts may state reasons beyond their original reports when explaining disagreement in the joint report but must respect their overriding duty to the court.
29 Dec 2023
The court found there is a good arguable case that the funds were advanced for a specific and exclusive purpose creating a Quistclose trust and that there is a real risk of dissipation and lack of adequate disclosure by the Defendant; accordingly the proprietary and Mareva injunctions granted ex parte were justifiably continued until trial or further order, and the balance of convenience favoured preservation of the assets.
8 Dec 2023
The application for extension was refused because the defendant offered no reasonable explanation for the 14‑day late filing, the proposed grounds had no real prospect of success (factual disputes and forgery allegations require trial), limitation was misconstrued and no clear prejudice from delay was proved; the hearing officer's costs order of HKD 30,000 was not an error and stands.
24 Oct 2023
Leave to file the 4th supplemental witness statement was refused because the application was unduly late, the defendant failed to justify the delay, the matters relied on had been previously disclosed or could have been produced earlier, there was a history of late applications and prior dismissal indicating tactical delay, and granting leave would cause real prejudice to the plaintiff's trial preparation (including disruption from late expert evidence).
6 Jul 2023
The court found the plaintiff established a prima facie claim and the defendant's factual case was inherently flawed and unbelievable because key witnesses lacked direct knowledge, the PO signed and affixed with the defendant's company chop and issuance of quotations/PO to the defendant supported contractual liability, the Emails were admissible and showed no dispute as to liability or quantum, and the forgery allegation was unproven; accordingly summary judgment was entered for the plaintiff for the outstanding contract sum (with interest) and existing judgment for the supplemental works was…
28 Apr 2023
Defendant was bound by the Put Option Agreement he signed; contemporaneous documents and his conduct (payments, transfer documents, Side Letter) corroborated execution; he failed to adduce evidence to rebut signature or establish total failure of consideration; clause 3 estopped him from denying consideration; the Notice was validly served and defendant defaulted on completion, entitling plaintiff to specific performance to require purchase at the stated Option Price and to damages under clause 6.4; costs awarded against defendant.