19 Aug 2020
There was no evidence of actual or apparent bias; the tribunal's reasoning and factual findings were legally sound on all pleaded defences except Defence 5 (alleged error in calculation of total contract sum), which raised a reasonably arguable legal issue. Leave to appeal was therefore granted but confined to the issue of Defence 5 only; costs to be dealt with in the appeal.
4 Jul 2019
The Renewal Order was set aside because the Board removed the private guardian solely on alleged accounting failures that were attributable in material part to the Department's misunderstanding and because the Board denied the Appellant procedural fairness by failing to forewarn her and give an opportunity to answer; accordingly the court reappointed the Appellant as guardian for 12 months and granted the extension of time to bring the appeal.
13 Feb 1997
The appeal was dismissed because no point of law was identified; under s.11(2) of the Lands Tribunal Ordinance an appeal to this Court lies only on a point of law, and none was presented.
20 Oct 1986
The court dismissed the applications: the Tribunal applied a stringent standard of proof, the inferences that C.W. Chow knew of the 'break clauses' and that this knowledge was used in procuring Starpeace sales were supported by cogent primary facts and lawful reasoning, the applicants were not denied a fair opportunity to respond, and statutory provisions authorize imputing corporate involvement and holding directors involved under section 141H(4)(b).
9 May 1986
The Court held that the Lands Tribunal has jurisdiction under s.11A to review and vary discretionary conditions imposed under s.53A(2) even where the original order was recorded 'by consent', because such conditions lie within the Tribunal's statutory discretion and protect the public interest and therefore cannot be made the subject of an immutable private contract; on the facts the Court itself exercised the discretion and permitted the approved variation to plans and a four‑month extension for completion.