30 Apr 2025
On the balance of probabilities the court accepted the plaintiffs' expert evidence that the defendant's renovation works caused the 16 cracks; the defendant breached the duty of care and caused an unreasonable interference (nuisance); plaintiffs were entitled to reasonable repair costs, temporary accommodation and modest general damages; total award HK$215,000 plus interest and costs.
31 Mar 2025
Respondent directors did breach fiduciary duties and acted in conflict by causing the Company’s core fleet to be transferred to a related company and leasing them back on terms benefiting the related company, but the petitioner failed to prove causative loss—key alleged heads of loss were not established or were settled—therefore the summons for misfeasance is dismissed despite finding breaches.
13 Mar 2023
Where the alleged benefit or loss is not particularised and cannot be equated directly to money 'stolen', the court should treat a commercial subsidy figure as an indicator of scale rather than automatic proof of a stolen amount; sentencing must weigh trust, period, use and other aggravating/mitigating factors. Applying those principles the appropriate starting point was five years and, after full one-third reduction for an early plea, the sentence was set at 40 months.
27 Sept 2019
The court accepted the uncontroverted motor survey report and insurer evidence establishing total loss and related expenses, and because the defendants offered no evidence to challenge quantum, assessed proven damages at HK$128,355 with interest and costs.
1 Aug 2019
Contemporaneous documents and witness evidence demonstrated innocent explanations for the IMB reports and absence of actual or deliberate blind-eye knowledge by DBSHK officers; the required mental elements for knowing receipt, dishonest assistance and fraudulent trading were not proved and the bank was a victim rather than participant; therefore all claims dismissed.
24 Nov 2017
Court found 1st and 2nd respondents were de facto directors for Wing Fai's financial affairs from 26 July 2001 to 18 April 2002 and that payments procured to Famous Capital and King Capital were in breach of fiduciary duty because the underlying transactions were fictitious and used improper purpose (deception of banks). However, substantial post‑sale repayments by the Group (discharging Wing Fai's bank indebtedness and effectively replenishing the estate) meant Wing Fai suffered no unrecovered actionable loss; on that basis the court exercised its discretion under s276 to dismiss the misfeas…
29 Jan 2016
Judge accepted plaintiffs' version of oral terms and that Declaration signed by defendant's representative was binding and supported by consideration; defendant breached express and implied terms (SOGO and SS(IT)O) by delivering a congeries of defects including electrical defects, water seepage and flea infestation traceable to defendant's furniture; plaintiffs entitled to damages totalling HK$261,668, interest and costs; defendant's repudiation argument rejected.
23 Dec 2011
The court found the armed robbery did occur and the plaintiff's witness credible; applied the recklessness standard to the policy's 'full and effective operation' and 'appropriate times' language and held plaintiff did not act recklessly by not using duress switches/time-locks, by having mechanical push buttons operative, by the CCTV not being switched on or by briefly leaving a safe open; CCTV was evidential only and not part of 'protections'; out-of-court statements could not be used to displace oral testimony; the insurer failed to prove a misstatement about consignment stock; accordingly…
10 Mar 2011
The court fixed security at HK$6,000,000 for each of the 2nd and 3rd defendants because that sum reasonably reflects the 2nd defendant's likely provable loss (about HK$5-6 million) and adequately covers the 3rd defendant's speculative risk without endorsing optimistic estimates; for consistency and sufficiency the security is to be by bank guarantee and costs are in the cause.
23 Dec 2010
Leave to adduce expert evidence was granted only in respect of (i) the nature and risks of the accumulator and decumulator products (Issue 1) and (ii) the quantum of losses suffered by D1 if liability is established (Amended Issue 4). Leave was refused for evidence on general suitability and on the sufficiency/adequacy of warnings (Issues 2 and 3) because those matters are primarily for the trier of fact and/or sufficiently covered by the technical analysis under Issue 1. Mr Solomon Green was accepted as a suitable expert at this interlocutory stage; challenges to his experience go to the wei…