19 Dec 2025
The hearing officer had read the evidence, fairly explained rights, and the first defendant twice confirmed she would not defend; documentary evidence established the loan, security and non‑payment; there was no arguable defence and no procedural unfairness, therefore the appeal is dismissed.
18 Mar 2016
The Court held that the DMC&P did not constitute a partition within Clause 2(1)(b) because the Deed of Exchange effected the allocation of undivided shares and the DMC&P preserved co-ownership while granting exclusive rights; alternatively, even if it were a partition, the Governor's written approval, endorsed on related contemporaneous documents (MTR Agreement/MTR Assignment), encompassed approval for the DMC&P so absence of an endorsement on the DMC&P itself did not render the title defective. Therefore the title was good, the Defence and Counterclaim were properly struck out and judgment f…
25 Nov 2009
The Defence disclosed no reasonable cause of defence and was struck out; the defendants, as administrators of the Trustee's estate, are under a duty to execute vesting assignments to vest the Deceased's legal title in the plaintiffs as administrators (subject to Lot No. 2384 which is excluded); the court ordered production of title deeds or statutory declaration, execution of a standard compensation and indemnity agreement, an account of dealings within specified times, empowered the Registrar to execute documents on default, and ordered costs for the plaintiffs on the ordinary party-and-part…
23 Jun 1995
The notice unambiguously required delivery of vacant possession on the contractual expiry (midnight 28 February 1994) and was valid; the negotiations and alleged representations did not amount to a clear suspension or waiver of the running of the notice and lacked cogent evidence to make the estoppel argument arguable, therefore the appeal must be dismissed and the summary judgment/order below affirmed.