26 Jun 1998
The Court held A11507/1997 was misconceived and an abuse of process and must be struck out; orders for costs in favour of the respondent stand; contested interlocutory matters must be raised and determined in the administration proceedings; appeals dismissed.
26 Jun 1998
The Court dismissed the appeals, struck out High Court Action A11507 of 1997 as an abuse of process (reserving only orders providing for payment of the defendant's costs), upheld the validity of the interlocutory costs orders unaffected by the Court of Appeal's consent order, and confirmed that disputed estate issues must be pursued in the administration proceedings; the court declined to act suo motu to declare the plaintiff a vexatious litigant or to order a mental health inquiry, noting statutory procedure for such inquiries.
26 Jun 1998
The separate writ claiming HK$537,048.48 is misconceived and the action A11507 of 1997 is an abuse of process; the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeals, struck out A11507 of 1997 save for preserving orders for payment of the defendant's costs, and held that disputed matters must be resolved in the administration proceedings by application for directions in the Court of First Instance; concerns about the appellant's conduct and mental capacity were noted but any inquiry under the Mental Health Ordinance must be brought by the defendant or Secretary.
27 Mar 1998
The appeal is dismissed: the Court held the consent order of 24 February 1998 did not nullify the earlier Court of Appeal costs order of 12 June 1997; there is no enforceable judgment in favour of the appellant for $537,048.48 and therefore no warrant of execution; the Master properly taxed the bills and properly assessed the litigant‑in‑person allowance under Order 62 r18; all summonses were dismissed and costs were awarded to the respondent.
17 Aug 1972
Because the Plaintiff's distress warrant predated the withdrawals of the execution warrants, the withdrawals legally released the goods to the judgment debtor and permitted lawful re‑seizure under the Plaintiff's distress warrant; consequently section 16(f) did not protect those goods seized under the prior executions and the Plaintiff was entitled to the value of the machinery, while piece‑goods and materials supplied by the 2nd Claimant remained protected under s.16(g) subject to proof of identity and value.