24 Feb 2026
The Court held that the IPA operated as an equitable charge over the deceased joint tenant's share and that the execution of the IPA itself was an act operating on the joint tenant's share sufficient to sever the joint tenancy; accordingly the plaintiff could not rely on survivorship to convey entire title and the plaintiff's originating summons was dismissed.
24 Oct 2025
The three cases were consolidated because the charges arise from the same App-operated bookmaking operation, form part of a series of offences of the same or similar character, and the evidence is sufficiently connected and intertwined involving the same key witness; there was no demonstrable prejudice or embarrassment to defendants that warranted severance and separation would deprive the court of the full picture of the syndicate's scope and criminality.
31 Jan 2023
Summary judgment was refused because there are triable issues that cannot be resolved on affidavit evidence: whether payments were made pursuant to a subsisting contract (which would preclude restitution), whether there is a satisfactory basis for severance to establish total failure of consideration given substantial partial deliveries, and whether the defendant can establish the change of position defence; accordingly defendant granted unconditional leave to defend and the summons dismissed with costs nisi in the cause.
3 Dec 2021
The Court held the applicant's murder conviction was sustainable because the jury could permissibly find a joint enterprise to apply substances while attributing differing mens rea to participants; the judge did not err in redacting irrelevant portions of the applicant's VRIs, was entitled to withhold a formal good‑character direction given the applicant's admissions of dishonesty, and adequately presented the defence expert evidence regarding injections not causing death; accordingly there was no legal or factual basis to disturb the conviction.
19 Oct 2020
The contemporaneous documentary evidence (salary records, Employer's Returns, plaintiff's tax returns and MPF records) consistently showed varied salary payments and undermined the plaintiff's account; the plaintiff lacked credibility, had admitted the arrangements were a sham in the Labour Tribunal, and therefore the unpaid salary and related contractual claims failed; however the plaintiff was entitled to statutory long service payment and one month's wages in lieu calculated on the last full month wages of HK$4,500, reduced by MPF benefits withdrawn, yielding net awards of HK$9,110 (long s…
18 Sept 2019
Consolidation of all five actions with consolidated pleadings was declined. The court held the TA Actions (HCA1295/2015, HCA1849/2015, HCA1850/2015) are sufficiently related to be heard together before the same judge (with HCA1295 as leading TA Action) and third‑party liability to be heard with them, but adverse possession issues in HCA691 and HCA694 are distinct and must be severed as AP Actions (with HCA691 as leading AP Action); the tenancy parts of HCA691 and HCA694 are stayed (without prejudice) and parties bound by findings in the TA Actions; existing pleadings shall not be expunged and…
18 Sept 2019
Consolidation of all five actions with a single set of pleadings was refused; the court found the tenancy/third‑party actions (TA Actions: HCA1295/2015, HCA1849/2015, HCA1850/2015) and adverse possession actions (AP Actions: severed parts of HCA691/2015 and HCA694/2015) are distinct and severable; ordered the AP issues severed and stayed the tenancy issues in HCA691/694 without prejudice to claims in the TA Actions; designated leading actions for each stream, directed unified management and trial before the same judge, allowed third parties to participate on liability in the TA Actions, refus…
18 Sept 2019
Consolidation of all five actions was refused. The court held the tenancy/third party actions (HCA 1295/2015, HCA 1849/2015 and HCA 1850/2015) should be heard together as the TA Actions with HCA 1295 as the leading TA Action; the adverse possession components of HCA 691/2015 and HCA 694/2015 are severable and will form the AP Actions with HCA 691 as the leading AP Action; the tenancy-related parts of HCA 691 and HCA 694 are stayed without prejudice to claims in the TA Actions; existing pleadings not expunged; third party defendants (former solicitors) may participate in the TA Actions on liab…
9 Apr 2019
Where prosecution proves chain of custody and reliability of the end devices that produced and stored WhatsApp records by combining end-user testimony and credible digital-forensics evidence, those records are admissible without s.22A certificates; prosecution need not prove every intermediary computer in transmission chain; however messages remain hearsay unless they fall within exceptions (declaration against interest or co-conspirator rule), and the court must guard against undue prejudice including by severance when necessary.
8 May 2018
The application for severance was refused because the evidence of the two complainants is sufficiently related in time, place and modus operandi that the evidence of one provides strong support for the other under the DPP v P test; the probative value outweighs the prejudicial effect and any prejudice can be managed, so a joint trial is just.