27 Mar 2023
The court granted the Consent Summons and made orders in terms agreed by the parties: the Plaintiff's Summons was dismissed, the hearing was vacated and the Plaintiff was ordered to pay the agreed costs of HK$145,000 within 14 days, the court exercising its power to make consent orders and give effect to the parties' agreement.
10 Jun 2020
Because documentary evidence showed that sufficient shareholder support (effectively 90%) existed to pass a special resolution by written resolution, the use of s228A was improper; the s228A resolution is void and is set aside, the Liquidators' application in HCMP 2288/2019 must be withdrawn and its hearing vacated, and costs of the applications are to be paid out of the company's assets.
9 Apr 2018
The court ordered sale because the defendant created his predicament by delaying payment, failed to show any good reason to refuse sale, there was no over-security given the debt to security ratio, the defendant's hardship was temporary and could be relieved by sale proceeds, and the plaintiff was entitled to refuse unrealistic instalment proposals.
12 Jan 2001
The hearing on 2.1.2001 was vacated without good cause and without proper disclosure of the true reason; applicants caused unnecessary proceedings and must therefore pay the respondent's costs of the summons heard on 22.12.2000, to be taxed if not agreed.
6 Aug 1988
The court held that the Master should have awarded costs to the appellant for the vacated hearing date and varied the Master's order accordingly; the summons to file a Rejoinder was dismissed with costs because it was premised on an illegality allegation that was not pursued; Tomax Investments Corporation was properly joined as a defendant under O.15 r.6(2)(b) because the plaintiff's existing allegations of fraud, sham and falsified documents directly affected Tomax, Mandarin and Lu's and those issues could not be justly determined in their absence, so the appeals on Grounds 1 and 3 were dism…