5 Mar 2026
The out-of-time leave application was dismissed because the applicant offered no valid excuse for a 21-day delay, the proposed grounds were speculative or previously rejected and did not raise matters of wide or public importance nor a real prospect of success; therefore leave to appeal out of time was refused and costs were awarded.
28 Nov 2025
The application for out‑of‑time leave is refused because the applicant's delay (approximately one and a half months) is substantial and unexplained, the substantive complaints lack any factual or legal merit so the proposed appeal has no real prospect of success, and the court rules legitimately permitted the respondent to lodge a draft order which accurately reflected the court's decision; therefore there are no grounds to extend time and leave is denied.
17 Sept 2025
The application to extend time was dismissed because the defendant failed to provide any specific evidence or affidavit to challenge the plaintiff's compliant Order 83A affidavit or to prove the loans were secured, and offered no adequate explanation for the delay; the plaintiff's supporting affidavit met the requirements of Order 83A and the defendant's bare assertions were not arguable.
24 Jun 2025
Extension of time to appeal was refused because the proposed appeal had no real prospect of success: the amended statement of claim failed to disclose essential elements of a defamation cause of action (no pleaded publication to third parties, no pleaded defamatory words or particulars, no causal link to the massive claimed quantum) and the defects were incurable on the face of the pleading; the Master's costs order was not shown to be unreasonable.
9 Jun 2025
The court struck out the originating processes in HCMP 1085/2024, 1098/2024, 1254/2024 and 1536/2024 because the pleadings failed to disclose any reasonable cause of action, were malicious, frivolous and an abuse of court process amounting to vexatious litigation, and the claims asserted against judicial officers were barred by judicial immunity under Basic Law Article 85; accordingly strike‑out relief and an interim costs order were made.
6 Mar 2025
Leave to appeal was refused because the proposed grounds lacked a reasonable prospect of success: the impugned Paragraph did not make factual findings against the non-parties (Duan HT and Zhao) but reflected uncontested evidence in the PRC proceedings; there was no arguable error of law in applying the Hollington principle; and no other public interest reason existed to justify hearing the appeal. Costs were ordered against the defendant, summarily assessed at HK$50,000.
27 Jan 2025
Leave to appeal was refused because the proposed grounds were fact‑specific and did not raise issues of great general or public importance under s22(1)(b); the application was filed outside the 28‑day period and amounted to an attempt to re‑argue the merits of the case; the intended appeal had no merit or reasonable prospect of success, and therefore leave was refused and costs awarded.
6 Nov 2024
The Summons was dismissed because there was no evidence the requested SCB statements were within P’s possession custody or power, R1 failed to show exceptional circumstances or produce draft evidence to justify adduction of further evidence shortly before trial, and there was no basis to order distribution of matrimonial funds prior to the ancillary relief trial; the application was abusive and frivolous, warranting dismissal and costs against R1.
4 Nov 2024
The appeal was dismissed because the plaintiff, represented by a party-director lacking status as an independent expert, failed to produce expert evidence to justify substituting the single joint expert's methodology with the plaintiff's proposed tests; the 18/F flat and its balcony are not the pleaded subject matter of the action so access orders under Order 29 r3(1) or s40 BMO were not warranted; accordingly the Master’s refusal was upheld and costs were awarded to the defendant.
23 Sept 2024
The appeals are dismissed because the 2015/2016 retainers are irrelevant to the costs assessment, an implied retainer would bind the plaintiff to pay reasonable fees even if the 2017 written retainer were invalid, and a Protective Costs Order is inappropriate because the proceedings do not engage public interest; accordingly the defendant must pay the plaintiff's costs of the appeals and the plaintiff's claimed costs are to be assessed by summary procedure.