4 Sept 2023
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed because the matters raised were procedural or factual complaints that did not raise any arguable question of law or jurisdiction and the Labour Tribunal's factual findings that the Second Defendant had justifiable grounds for dismissal were neither perverse nor unsupported by evidence.
20 Apr 2023
On the balance of probabilities the claimant failed to prove his termination was connected to his disability; factual findings established genuine performance and attitude problems as the operative reasons for termination and the April 2016 amendment was an administrative measure consistent with policy for employees over 60, therefore no discrimination under the Ordinance and claim dismissed.
12 Sept 2014
The court granted restoration because the Applicant demonstrated it was aggrieved and applied within the statutory 20‑year period and, on the evidence, had a bona fide claim; the court declined to decide the substantive dispute in this proceeding and held that absence of assets or insolvency is not a decisive reason to refuse restoration under the Ordinance.
20 Jun 2013
The Court ordered removal of the iron grille and awarded the Defendant his costs because the Plaintiff caused the need for the summons by relying on an incorrect diagram and failing to take timely steps to verify the correct approved building plan; the Court refused to grant an order to assist in creating or maintaining an illegal partition wall (wooden door) and recorded undertakings requiring the Plaintiff to demolish the illegal structures and not to obstruct reinstatement.
3 Aug 2012
Leave to appeal refused because the 1st Defendant has no realistic prospect of success: the court correctly applied an objective test and found no reasonable assurance by the liquidators that would have conveyed an entitlement to the Exterior Wall, there is insufficient evidence of reliance and detriment to support proprietary estoppel, factual findings are unlikely to be disturbed on appeal, and any licence would not bind the Plaintiff.
18 Jul 2012
Defendant breached clause 18 by failing to replace 14 damaged aluminium ceiling panels and is liable to indemnify plaintiff for replacement costs (HK$140,000). The ceiling fans and spotlights were chattels not fixtures and clause 5 was not breached. Late-disclosed photographs and project documents were inadmissible. Plaintiff was not entitled to forfeit the deposit; defendant entitled to balance return of HK$70,203.36. Costs and interest ordered accordingly.
29 Oct 2009
Leave to appeal was refused because the disputed issues were factual findings and credibility assessments properly made by the Deputy Adjudicator and did not raise arguable points of law; legal principles applied (market rent determination, no waiver by mere acceptance of keys) supported the decision and the claimant failed the statutory threshold for leave.
18 Aug 2006
Master preferred the plaintiff's evidence and the plaintiff's expert over the defendant's expert, found the plaintiff had taken all reasonable steps to market the premises and had no obligation to take steps that would depress the building's rental tone; accordingly plaintiff was entitled to recover lost rent, service charges, rates and reinstatement costs as quantified, interest at the contractual rate (3% over prime) and indemnity costs.
7 Feb 2006
Because the defendant repudiated the tenancy and abandoned the premises and the plaintiff promptly re-let the premises, the court awarded the plaintiff damages equal to the calculated shortfall in rent and associated outgoings for the remainder of the term, together with reinstatement costs and costs of the action; the defendant's non-appearance and absence of contrary mitigation evidence meant the plaintiff's evidence and calculations were accepted in full.
17 Jan 2006
Clauses A2 and B1 are not conditions precedent because their wording and nature permit an interpretation that breach affects quantum only and can be remedied by monetary deduction or set-off; therefore breach of those clauses does not wholly bar recovery and the appellant is entitled to have quantum determined.