19 Jan 2007
Leave to appeal was refused because the respondent did not satisfy s22(1): the dispute involved only HK$17,500 and the core issue (award of entertainment expenses rejected by the AGM) was fact‑specific and not of general or public importance; accordingly leave was dismissed and costs awarded to the applicant.
13 Oct 2001
The court held that the Code of Practice and the owners' internal resolution do not fetter the court's discretion under s.52A of the High Court Ordinance to award costs; therefore costs actually incurred and allowed on taxation may be awarded notwithstanding the corporation's internal limit. The court set aside the previous order nisi for indemnity because the 2nd Defendant conducted a materially different defence from the 1st Defendant and it would be unfair to make the 1st Defendant bear the 2nd Defendant's share of the Plaintiff's costs; accordingly each defendant must individually pay the…
10 Oct 2001
There was a serious question to be tried on the validity of the termination resolution, but the balance of convenience favoured refusing interlocutory injunctions because damages were an adequate remedy and there was an irretrievable breakdown of the relationship between the manager and the committee; the minutes sufficiently evidenced that provision had been made for the notice period under Schedule 7 para 7 and therefore the plaintiffs' application for interlocutory relief was dismissed with costs (order nisi).