22 Jul 2021
Leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal was refused because the applicant failed to set out any grounds or reasonably arguable issues, failed to explain or seek an extension of time for the late appeal, and did not comply with directions to file submissions, and the matter did not raise any question of great general or public importance.
16 Jul 2021
Leave to appeal to the CFA was refused because the applicant failed to comply with the unless order and did not apply for extension of time or seek relief from the sanction, failed to file any written submissions or specify arguable grounds, and did not show any question of great general or public importance warranting referral to the CFA.
27 Jul 2020
Failure by the Small Claims adjudicator to consider the applicable legal principles concerning secondary victims was an error of law and a material error at the strike-out stage; the appeal is allowed, the adjudicator's decision is set aside and the removal/strike-out application is remitted to the Small Claims Tribunal for reconsideration by a different adjudicator. The applicant's recusal application was refused: refusal to grant an adjournment as a case-management decision does not establish actual or apparent bias.
26 Mar 2018
Appeals dismissed because (1) alleged age discrimination is not a freestanding statutory cause in Hong Kong; (2) inducement/procuring breach is legally inapplicable where no termination/loss flowed and conduct was within chairman's legitimate role; (3) alleged harassment did not satisfy the required elements of repetition and foreseeable distress; (4) litigation statements and court evidence are protected by privilege and PDPO exemptions and privacy claims must be brought in the District Court; and (5) appellant improperly sought to raise new factual allegations and grounds on appeal which ca…
3 Aug 2015
The plaintiff's claims were dismissed because they constitute re-litigation of matters already finally determined in prior proceedings, amount to a collateral attack and abuse of process, and therefore must be struck out even though some actions were commenced before the RAO/RPO.
29 Apr 2015
Claim dismissed and action struck out because the claimant delayed approximately 12 years and failed to produce expert evidence that satisfies the Bolam standard and the causation test, leaving no basis for the court to exercise its discretionary power under s30 to extend time.
17 Mar 2010
The Amended Statements of Claim were struck out because the pleaded unlawful‑means conspiracy failed to plead essential elements (particulars of the unlawful means, the requisite intention to injure and a causal link to the claimed loss); the plaintiffs' alternative case advanced at hearing could not be inferred from the pleadings, was inconsistent with their own evidence and Labour Tribunal filings, and there was no realistic prospect of curing the defects by amendment, therefore dismissal was appropriate.
31 Mar 1999
The application to dismiss the action was refused because the plaintiff's claim was not plainly and obviously unsustainable on the pleadings, and it was inappropriate to decide contested triable issues on a strike‑out application; the Order 14A application was dismissed because the construction point is triable and had already been considered and declined by the prior judge, so it could not be re‑litigated; accordingly D2's application was dismissed and costs were ordered nisi against D2.