|
Citation
|
Judgment date
|
| February 2007 |
|
|
Appeal allowed: strike-out set aside; factual issues on vicarious liability, contractual breach and knowing assistance must proceed to trial.
Civil procedure – Strike out (Order 18 r.19) – Three Rivers test; Corporate management – vicarious liability – fiduciary duties owed by directors are personal – vicarious liability for intentional wrongdoing depends on closeness of connection (Lister, Dubai Aluminium); Contract – duty to provide services honestly and with due care including reasonable steps to ensure honest staff; Equity – dishonest assistance requires proof of material dishonest assistance.
|
5 February 2007 |
|
|
2 February 2007 |
| January 2007 |
|
|
|
29 January 2007 |
| September 2006 |
|
|
Client’s active, informed decision to appeal precluded finding solicitor negligent; appeal allowed and fees awarded.
Professional negligence – solicitor’s duty of care – standard measured by reasonably competent practitioner. Solicitor communications and client autonomy – whether solicitor’s e-mail constituted negligent advice to appeal. Appeal procedure – whether encouragement or discussion by counsel can amount to negligence. Recovery of legal fees – counterclaim allowed and judgment for unpaid fees with interest.
|
8 September 2006 |
| February 2006 |
|
|
Whether a solicitor negligently advised the respondent to appeal a strike-out order and thereby caused unnecessary litigation.
Professional negligence — Solicitor’s duty and standard of care — Advice to appeal a strike-out order — Causation and client autonomy — Evidentiary weight of contemporaneous e-mails — Remedies: repayment of fees, contractual interest and costs.
|
19 February 2006 |
|
Applicant’s admitted payments to influence immigration decisions amounted to abuse of process; leave for judicial review refused.
Judicial review – leave to apply – abuse of process – applicant’s admitted payments via intermediary intended to affect immigration decisions – court refuses leave. Administrative law – natural justice – failure to give reasons and opportunity to be heard alleged but leave barred by abuse finding. Extension of time – applications concerning 2004 decisions were out of time, but determinative issue was abuse of process.
|
16 February 2006 |
|
|
2 February 2006 |
| October 2005 |
|
|
Appeal allowed: finding of deliberate dishonesty overturned where appellant corrected misleading statement to Attorney‑General the next morning.
Professional conduct – disciplinary proceedings under Legal Profession Ordinance – alleged dishonest misrepresentation of court order to Attorney‑General – whether corrected next morning – sufficiency of evidence for finding of deliberate dishonesty. Standard of proof – disciplinary hearing standard akin to criminal; tribunal must give adequate weight to inferences favourable to respondent. Bar Council procedure – investigation and referral under statute properly instituted; costs of investigation may be ordered against respondent.
|
31 October 2005 |
| August 2005 |
|
|
Court set aside winding-up order and remitted the petition for rehearing, finding refusal to adjourn was improper.
Companies law – winding-up petition – whether petitioning creditor has locus standi to present petition under section 94. Arbitration Ordinance s.5 – stay pending arbitration – procedural requirement of leave to appeal and effect on subsequent proceedings. Civil procedure – adjournment discretion – refusal merging with final order where it defeats party’s rights; need for rehearing. Disputed debt – bona fide dispute and admission of fresh evidence on appeal; remittal for rehearing. International comity – effect of foreign TRO on domestic insolvency proceedings.
|
19 August 2005 |
|
Appellate court affirms discharge of freezing injunction, finding no real risk of asset dissipation and no error in exercise of discretion.
Civil procedure – interlocutory (Mareva) injunction – real risk of dissipation test; appellate review of interlocutory discretion – interference only for error of law, misapprehension of evidence, or manifestly unreasonable exercise; procedural requirement – respondent's notice to challenge grounds of appeal; weighing hearsay and hardship to respondents.
|
15 August 2005 |
| May 2005 |
|
|
|
31 May 2005 |
| February 2005 |
|
|
|
1 February 2005 |
| January 2004 |
|
|
Anti-suit injunction was wrongly granted; multi-fora dispute with legitimate Texas forum and no oppressive conduct shown.
Anti-suit injunctions; forum non conveniens; natural forum v. multi-fora; comity and interference with foreign courts; requirement to show vexatious or oppressive conduct/bad faith; declaratory relief (negative declaration) and strike-out.
|
30 January 2004 |
|
|
30 January 2004 |
| August 2003 |
|
|
The court ruled statutory appeal time limits are mandatory and cannot be judicially extended; the appellant’s late appeal was dismissed.
Criminal procedure – appeals from Magistrate’s Court – statutory time limit for notice of appeal (s.163) is a condition precedent – absence of statutory provision for extension means courts have no jurisdiction to extend time. Statutory construction – mandatory time limits – compliance required; no inherent judicial power to alter statutory deadlines. Magistrate’s duty – s.166 obligation to state right of appeal; contemporaneous notes serve as evidence of compliance.
|
21 August 2003 |
|
|
21 August 2003 |
| November 2002 |
|
|
Whether the magistrate lawfully committed a substantial cocaine possession case to the Supreme Court and preserved the appellant’s fair-trial rights.
Criminal procedure – mode of trial – magistrate’s discretion to commit either-way offences for trial on indictment – relevance of quantity of controlled drug and adequacy of summary sentencing powers.* Controlled drugs – possession with intent to supply – substantial quantity (560g cocaine) as factor justifying committal.* Constitutional right to fair trial – section 72(1) and protection from double jeopardy – committal for trial does not in itself violate fair trial rights.* Magistrate’s Court Ordinance – application of ss.34, 40, 53, 54, 70 and s.161(1) – committal v summary conviction.* Conspiracy charge – whether rightly maintained and committed for trial.
|
10 November 2002 |
| August 2002 |
|
|
Registrar cannot use Rule 25(1)(c) to require security for a respondent’s appeal costs; deposit should be nominal (max $500).
Court of Appeal practice — Registrar’s powers under Rule 25(1)(b) and (c) — deposit for record preparation versus penal security for non-prosecution — Rule 25(1)(c) not a mechanism for security for respondent’s costs — security for costs governed by Rules 18, 35 and 36 (written demand, affidavit, inter partes application) — cap of $500 for Registrar’s penal deposit.
|
11 August 2002 |
| May 2000 |
|
|
A Court of Appeal judge lacked statutory power to extend time for filing a civil notice of appeal under the Ordinance.
Court of Appeal – jurisdiction to extend time for filing civil notice of appeal; statutory time limit (s.15 Court of Appeal Ordinance) mandatory; Rules of Court cannot contradict statute; extension by single judge invalid; Supreme Court power under s.5(a) to grant extension.
|
22 May 2000 |