22 Jan 2021
The Court of Appeal held the appellants failed to show any reasonable prospect of success: the evidence supported a periodic monthly tenancy after the fixed term and the termination notices and subsequent conduct by the landlord did not create a legitimate defence; alleged procedural irregularities were immaterial; therefore leave to appeal was refused and costs awarded.
6 Jan 2020
The omission of page numbers was a minor technicality that did not affect the validity of the sealed orders which accurately reflected the orders made; the defendants' challenge was therefore groundless and vexatious, and the appeal is dismissed with costs to the Plaintiff.
14 Mar 2018
Read fairly the Order 52(2)(2) statement contained sufficient factual particulars to disclose the substance of the alleged non‑party contempt despite some mis‑characterisations; although the statement omitted an explicit averment of the defendants' knowledge of the source of funds (a necessary factual element), in the exceptional circumstances and on the material before the ex parte judge there was no prejudice and the court properly exercised its discretion to refuse to set aside the Leave Order and permit amendment.
29 Nov 1993
On the facts before the court and for the purposes of exercising judicial discretion the judge assumed the section13E(1) orders and s32(4)(a) authorisations to be valid, held that the Crown's need for witnesses outweighed the respondents' liberty interests, reserved jurisdictional and factual challenges (including alleged ulterior purpose and Director's intention) for future application where the Director can adduce evidence, ruled that body orders do not amount to detention orders, and that unsealed originating notices were not a fatal procedural defect; accordingly ordered detention under s…
29 Nov 1993
The court, having assumed for present purposes the validity of the section 13E(1) orders and the section 32(4)(a) authorisations (because the Director must be given an opportunity to adduce evidence on motive and intent), held that for the majority of respondents the public interest in ensuring availability of material Crown witnesses in a long and complex murder trial outweighed the respondents' private interest in immediate repatriation; accordingly the court granted further detention orders under section 32(4)(b) for 14 days from 3 December 1993 for all respondents except three identified…
6 Mar 1987
Proof that the officers physically acted as public officers was insufficient to supply the specific statutory requirement of written authorization to arrest under Section 84 Cap.132; because lawfulness of the arrest was a necessary precondition of the offence under Section 23 Cap.228, the presumption of regularity could not be used to supply that central fact and the conviction on Charge A must be quashed.
24 May 1978
The court held it had jurisdiction in rem: the company remained the beneficial owner of the ships for the purposes of the Act, the plaintiffs could not be preempted by an automatic recognition of the U.S. Chapter 11 stay as depriving Hong Kong jurisdiction, and the proper remedy was not to set aside the writs but to stay the actions only until plaintiffs rectified specified procedural defects; consequently no broad stay was granted on grounds of foreign bankruptcy or lack of jurisdiction.
24 May 1978
Court held it had jurisdiction to entertain the in rem actions; the US Chapter 11 'debtor in possession' status did not, on the facts, deprive the company of beneficial ownership for purposes of the Act; plaintiffs may obtain only one arrest/security in substitution for arrest and election is demonstrated by arrest or equivalent security rather than mere service/appearance; however the court declined to grant a stay based on the US insolvency proceedings and instead ordered a limited procedural stay until plaintiffs furnished specified particulars.