24 Apr 2023
Applicant's failure to lodge the election return was not attributable to inadvertence or any reasonable cause because he consciously or recklessly omitted to comply despite clear materials and reminders; the judge properly exercised discretion to refuse relief to protect the integrity of the election regime, and the Court of Appeal will not interfere.
19 Nov 2021
Given the unprecedented postponement and the Regulation changing the deadline, the court found the applicant's failure to file was inadvertence, not bad faith, satisfying s40(2)(c) ECICO; relief was granted permitting the applicant to lodge the election return out of time and the court awarded costs against the applicant in the sum of HKD 20,000.
26 Feb 2014
The court held that the errors and omissions in the applicants' election returns were results of inadvertence, miscalculation or loss of documents and did not demonstrate bad faith; accordingly relief under s40(3) to correct returns and under s40(5) to except the applicants from strict documentary requirements was granted; the errors did not affect the overall election expense picture nor exceed the expense ceiling; corrective returns ordered within 7 days and no order as to costs.
30 Aug 2012
The court found the omission was not inadvertent because the 2004 correspondence from BOC/KBC unambiguously stated it would not enforce the charging order, demonstrating an intention to surrender the security; accordingly the application to amend the proof of debt was dismissed.
24 May 2011
The court was satisfied the applicant had read the election materials, the failure to comply with s34(1) and (4) was due to inadvertence and not bad faith, there was no notice requirement under s35(2)(a)(ii), the applicant promptly sought to remedy the defect, and in all the circumstances it was just to grant relief under section 35 and relieve him from penalties under section 34.
24 Apr 2007
Application allowed because the judge was satisfied the delay resulted from a combination of the applicant's absence from Hong Kong and inadvertence, and there was no bad faith; therefore court granted leave under s40(2) to lodge the election return within three days.
13 May 1975
Application dismissed because applicant unreasonably delayed claiming interest after judgment and after appeal, the judgment debt had been paid thus prejudicing the respondent, and the court was not satisfied that inadvertence justified exercising s.30A(3) in the face of prejudice and finality of the satisfied judgment.