27 Oct 2025
The setting aside application was dismissed because the judgment was regular, the respondent failed to prove lack of effective notice or an arguable defence on the tenancy or managers' lack of authority, and the award of mesne profits at HK$12,000 per month was supported; therefore the original orders stand and the set-aside summons is dismissed.
6 Mar 2025
The court refused to extend time and to reopen/reinstate the withdrawn judicial review because the applicant offered no valid reason to justify setting aside the withdrawal; Order 21 r 3 does not mandate reinstatement and finality principles governing withdrawn non-refoulement appeals and the court's duty to prevent abuse require dismissal of the application.
5 Apr 2024
The possession order was a regular order and service on the occupier was effective and known to the defendant; the defendant failed to produce credible, substantive evidence of a tenancy or of actual or ostensible authority by the alleged agent to let the land, and therefore had no real prospect of success or triable issue; the registrar’s order setting aside the possession order was wrongly made and was rescinded.
4 Aug 2023
The sealed Consent Order was perfected and therefore the court was functus officio; Master Alan Kwong had no jurisdiction to set aside the Consent Order by way of the Amended Summons and the proper remedy is an appeal or fresh action, so the Defendants' application is dismissed and costs awarded to the Plaintiff on a party-to-party basis.
11 Mar 2022
The tribunal upheld the hearing judge's credibility finding that the clerk's affidavit was truthful and concluded the defendant produced no evidence to support allegations of a false affidavit or that the judgment had become invalid; the ex parte attachment met Order 45 requirements; therefore the application to set aside the possession and attachment order failed and the appeal was dismissed.
11 Feb 2022
The application for leave to appeal was dismissed because the Tribunal lawfully exercised its discretion under s32A to set aside default judgment on a payment‑in condition, the defendant failed to provide evidence of inability to comply with that condition, and there was no arguable error of law or excess of jurisdiction warranting leave to appeal.
24 Jan 2022
Order 35 rule 2 does not apply to winding-up proceedings because the RHC rules are excluded except where the Ordinance/CWUR make no provision; rule 210 cannot import Order 35 r2 here; s.209 is the appropriate statutory route to end a winding-up order; in any event the summons was out of time, the delay was unjustified and the Company failed to demonstrate a bona fide dispute on substantial grounds, so the application to set aside or vary the winding-up order is dismissed and costs are awarded on an indemnity basis against the contributory.
27 Jul 2021
The injunction dated 19/02/2021 was an ex parte and, in form, a final order made without giving Defendant notice; there are substantive triable issues (whether No.103 is within the government tenancy and whether a sale/nomination for HK$200,000 occurred creating proprietary estoppel), and material non-disclosure by Plaintiff; accordingly the ex parte injunction must be set aside under Order 32 r6 and no interlocutory or final injunction should have been granted; costs awarded to Defendant.
29 Mar 2021
The defendant deliberately misrepresented and failed to disclose material assets and his true financial position during negotiations; that non-disclosure was material and induced the plaintiff to take loans and consent to terms she would not otherwise have accepted; accordingly the Consent Order was set aside and a hearing de novo in the Family Court of the plaintiff's application for ancillary relief was ordered.
3 Jun 2020
The ex parte Enforcement Order was discharged because counsel for the Applicants deliberately omitted materially relevant words from the Award in the ex parte affidavit, thereby depriving the judge of full and frank disclosure necessary for the court's weighing exercise; absence of any explanation and a demonstrable gain to the Applicants supported the inference of deliberate non-disclosure, warranting discharge of the Order.