17 Jun 2025
Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant lacked standing as she was neither the tenant nor an authorised occupier under the lease, the Appeal Board lawfully applied s20(1) of the Housing Ordinance in refusing to accept her appeal, and there was no arguable case for judicial review.
15 Apr 2025
The appeal was dismissed because the plaintiff lacked proper legal standing or, alternatively, her particulars were insufficient so the claim was liable to fail; the Master’s exercise of discretion to order costs against the discontinuing party was reasonable and not legally erroneous, and the defendants’ objections were timely and not prejudicial to the plaintiff.
9 Sept 2022
The writ and statement of claim were struck out and the action dismissed because the Plaintiff, as a New Zealand administrator, had not obtained resealing of the NZ Letters of Administration in Hong Kong and therefore lacked the legal capacity to sue in Hong Kong on behalf of the estate; proceedings commenced in that capacity were a nullity (binding precedent: Lam Sik Ying and Ingall v Moran). Costs ordered against the Plaintiff personally.
27 Jul 2022
The court refused SJ's application to be excused. Given the serious allegations of internal mismanagement, the nature of the reliefs sought (including orders effectively against SJ), the absence of a split trial, the original trial estimate based on SJ's participation, and the insufficiency of a mere watching brief to discharge SJ's protective duties, SJ must attend the full trial in its capacities for both SJ and SHA; costs of the application are reserved.
27 Jul 2022
The application to excuse SJ from attending the trial was refused because the proceedings involve serious allegations of internal mismanagement and seek orders affecting the administration of a charity (including reliefs against SJ), SJ has a duty as parens patriae to protect charitable interests and assist the court, the original trial estimate assumed SJ's participation, watching brief would be insufficient, and fairness and proportionality favoured requiring SJ's attendance to ensure the court can be properly assisted.
19 Jan 2022
The Shearman Parties lacked sufficient interest to invoke the statutory jurisdiction to remove the liquidators because their position was effectively adverse to the estate and they were not unsecured creditors entitled to participate in distribution; binding authorities (Deloitte v Johnson and Li Xiao Yi) restrict standing to persons with a legitimate interest (creditors/contributories), therefore the originating summons was dismissed for want of standing.
12 Dec 2019
The court dismissed both the s765 restoration and the s42 rectification/removal applications because the applicants failed to establish it would be 'just' to restore the Company given deliberate and opaque deregistration conduct, fabricated and inconsistent evidence, lack of adequate disclosure on who funded and instructed post-dissolution litigation, and because rectification/removal would improperly achieve the practical effects of restoration despite the court finding restoration not just; Jaldhi was permitted to be joined as a party.
18 Mar 2016
The summons for an interlocutory injunction was dismissed because the plaintiff lacked standing to restrain the 2nd defendant from dealing with its own loans, the allegations rested on an unproven foreign indictment insufficient to justify pre-empting corporate decision-making, there was no realistic risk that the capitalisation would destroy evidence, and the plaintiff could not provide the necessary cross-undertaking in damages.
19 Mar 2015
The summons was dismissed because the plaintiff failed to appear and, substantively, had no legal basis to obtain the first two injunctions as a shareholder; with respect to promissory note no.7 the relevant proprietary interest and cause of action lay with Mr Hyon (the note's possessor), rendering the plaintiff without standing to seek the requested relief; the court declined to strike out parts of the writ because defects were potentially curable by joinder.
11 Jul 2013
CEEO ss32-33 must be read together: where a s33 person relies on s32(1)(a) or (b) grounds the challenge to a Chief Executive election is available only by election petition; non-s33 persons may challenge by judicial review (subject to leave) including on comparable grounds; s34(1)'s absolute seven-day time limit for lodging election petitions does not infringe the Article 35 right of access to the courts and is constitutional; accordingly Mr Ho's out-of-time election petition was barred and should be struck out, and the earlier costs order is set aside and replaced by no order as to costs.