10 Jan 2023
The notice of appeal filed by the 1st defendant is struck out; the costs order nisi is made absolute because no application to vary was made within 14 days; the plaintiff's statement of costs was unchallenged and the court finds the claimed sum of $72,810 to be entirely reasonable and allows it in full.
3 Aug 2022
The court refused to strike out the notice of appeal because it was not plain and obvious on the face of the notice that the appeal was incompetent or an abuse of process; however, because the debtor is shown to be impecunious and the appeal lacks substantial prospects of success or countervailing circumstances, the court exercised its discretion to order security for costs of HK$116,000 to be paid into court within 28 days and stayed the appeal until security is given, with dismissal consequences for default.
23 Dec 2021
The Court dismissed the striking out summons. Although the judge's sealed order was ambiguous as to whether leave extended to Grounds 1-3, the court would not hold that leave had not been granted and would not exercise its striking out jurisdiction because Grounds 1-3 involved factual challenges requiring extensive factual inquiry; striking out is confined to clear and obvious cases and the defendants did not meet that high hurdle.
29 Mar 2016
The court refused to strike out the Notice of Appeal because the case was not a sufficiently clear one to justify that remedy, but ordered security for costs on appeal because the 1st Defendant's prospects were poor, he had a history of hopeless applications and there was evidence the Plaintiff would have difficulty enforcing a costs order; security was fixed at $450,000 and costs of the summons were to be costs in the cause.
2 Nov 2012
The notice of appeal dated 5 September 2012 was struck out because it constituted an abuse of the court's process: the defendant had already appealed the same order which had been dismissed and the dismissal sealed and perfected, and only the Court of Appeal may review such a sealed/perfected order; therefore the judge in chambers lacked jurisdiction to entertain the second appeal and striking out was appropriate with indemnity costs to the plaintiff.