|
Citation
|
Judgment date
|
| December 2025 |
|
|
Court granted a protective 12‑month extension of a writ where service was disputed, exercising inherent jurisdiction to prevent injustice.
Civil procedure – extension of writ validity – protective extensions where service is disputed – inherent jurisdiction to prevent injustice – Order 6 r.8 principles (Kleinwort Benson) – balance of prejudice – technical irregularity not automatically fatal.
|
9 December 2025 |
|
The applicant’s claim was struck out as an impermissible relitigation barred by res judicata and privity.
Res judicata; abuse of process (Henderson v Henderson); issue estoppel; privity of interest; misfeasance in public office; strike out under Ord. 18 r.19; appropriate remedy (judicial review v damages).
|
8 December 2025 |
| November 2025 |
|
|
A Minister breached fiduciary duty by relying on an expired land valuation; judgment corrected to reflect that finding.
Administrative/fiduciary duty – Ministerial duty when effecting land transfers – obligation to obtain current valuation where prior valuation has expired or where material change may have occurred. Evidence/interpretation – significance of typographical errors in quoted documents and their potential to alter legal conclusions. Remedies – corrigendum to judgment to correct wording and clarify findings.
|
14 November 2025 |
|
Registrar grants interim payments under Order 29 after finding plaintiffs likely to obtain substantial damages, apportioning liability between defendants.
Interim payments (Order 29 r.10–11) – personal injury – high civil standard of proof that plaintiff would obtain substantial damages against a particular defendant – evidence required (medical reports, special damages) – multiple defendants and apportionment – non-compliance with procedural directions not per se fatal.
|
11 November 2025 |
|
Plaintiff failed to prove defendant dishonestly assisted in undervalued Crown land transfers; claim dismissed.
• Crown land allocation – Crown Land Policy – CPLs vs freehold transfers – delegated ministerial authority
• Fiduciary duty of minister – distinction between disloyalty (breach) and mere incompetence or error
• Dishonest assistance (accessory liability) – elements: fiduciary duty and breach, assistance, and dishonesty (objective test)
• Evidence – hearsay in civil proceedings admissible under Evidence (Special Provisions) Act; non-compliance affects weight
• Valuation and equitable compensation – assessable loss must flow from breach; speculative development valuations not controlling where land undevelopable/nature reserve
|
10 November 2025 |
|
Court declares vending on specified beach areas unlawful but refuses mandamus, allowing restoration if enforcement remains unsatisfactory.
Beach and Coastal Vending Act 2021 — enforcement — vending zones — operation outside permitted zones — discretionary enforcement by Beach Patrol Unit — limits of mandamus where enforcement is ineffective but not wholly refused; public authority resource/ impossibility defenses.
|
7 November 2025 |
| October 2025 |
|
|
Joint custody granted but day‑to‑day care and control awarded to respondent as being in the children’s best interests.
Family law – custody and day‑to‑day care – welfare and best interests under Family Law Act – welfare checklist and children’s wishes Child welfare – evidence from social services, psychological assessments and Magistrate’s findings weighed in custody decision Siblings – principle against separation unless necessary; holistic welfare balancing exercise Joint custody – maintained while day‑to‑day care and control awarded to respondent
|
6 October 2025 |
| September 2025 |
|
|
Court ordered defendants to disclose specific witness statements under Ord.24 r.7; no evidence the DPP letter existed.
Civil procedure – discovery – Order 24 r.7 – applicant must show prima facie that specific documents exist, relate to matters in issue, and are in opponent’s possession, custody or power. Legal professional privilege – communications between police and DPP examined; privilege may arise only if relationship tantamount to client-lawyer exists. Court’s inherent jurisdiction – inspection under confidential cover to determine whether r.7 affidavit should be ordered. Specific disclosure ordered for identified witness statements; DPP letter not shown to exist.
|
25 September 2025 |
|
Applicant lawfully placed on Stop List for prolonged immigration breaches; work permit does not override Stop List; review dismissed.
Immigration law – Stop List – statutory power to prohibit entry where person conducted themselves "undesirably" – placing name on Stop List lawful where long-term breach of permits; work permit does not negate Stop List; no general right to prior notice of Stop List placement for persons outside jurisdiction; Governor may direct removal but no evidence of such direction here; refusal to accept renewal and claims for damages not established.
|
22 September 2025 |
|
A strata corporation’s blanket no‑pet by‑law was upheld as valid and not ultra vires, constitutional challenge dismissed.
Strata law – By‑laws – Validity of blanket no‑pet by‑law; ultra vires challenge under section 20 STA; constitutional claim under section 17(1) (peaceful enjoyment of property) dismissed; comparative consideration of Cooper (NSW) but different statutory regimes.
|
22 September 2025 |
|
Court refused to sanction a damages‑based 'no win, no fee' agreement, finding DBAs champertous absent legislation.
Damages‑based agreements (DBAs) – champerty and maintenance – Criminal Law Act ss9–10 preserve public policy against champerty – Regulation 23 Code of Professional Conduct prohibits significant pecuniary interest by counsel – indemnity principle and costs recovery – access to justice does not justify judicial creation of DBAs – legislative reform required.
|
22 September 2025 |
| August 2025 |
|
|
The Governor's refusal to grant naturalisation was quashed due to procedural unfairness and unlawful fettering of discretion.
Administrative law – judicial review – procedural fairness – refusal of naturalisation – exercise of statutory discretion – legitimate expectation – reliance on policy guidance – mandatory considerations – British Nationality Act 1981 – residency and immigration breach requirements – separation of discretionary powers – fair notice of reliance on policy – natural justice.
|
13 August 2025 |
| July 2025 |
|
|
|
18 July 2025 |
|
|
11 July 2025 |
| June 2025 |
|
|
|
25 June 2025 |
|
The Court lacked power to void a general election and held single‑ballot electronic voting was substantially compliant, dismissing the petitions.
Constitutional and election law – Jurisdiction of election courts – No power to declare an entire general election void; petitions must relate to particular elections/members. Electoral procedure – Electronic Tabulating System – single ballot format permissible; legacy manual‑ballot colour requirement does not apply. Election petitions – Substantial compliance test (Morgan v Simpson refined) governs validity; administrative errors in statutory forms do not necessarily vitiate an election. Evidence – observer reports as hearsay; viva voce evidence of election officials relevant to assessing voter confusion.
|
6 June 2025 |
| May 2025 |
|
|
|
27 May 2025 |
|
|
14 May 2025 |
|
|
6 May 2025 |
| April 2025 |
|
|
|
17 April 2025 |
|
|
16 April 2025 |
| March 2025 |
|
|
|
28 March 2025 |
|
|
26 March 2025 |
|
|
20 March 2025 |
|
|
9 March 2025 |
|
|
7 March 2025 |
|
|
7 March 2025 |
| February 2025 |
|
|
|
28 February 2025 |
|
|
24 February 2025 |
|
|
14 February 2025 |
|
|
10 February 2025 |
| January 2025 |
|
|
|
31 January 2025 |
|
|
24 January 2025 |
|
|
24 January 2025 |
|
|
21 January 2025 |
|
|
8 January 2025 |
| December 2024 |
|
|
|
20 December 2024 |
|
|
2 December 2024 |
| November 2024 |
|
|
|
28 November 2024 |
|
|
22 November 2024 |
|
|
18 November 2024 |
| October 2024 |
|
|
|
31 October 2024 |
|
|
29 October 2024 |
|
|
25 October 2024 |
|
A corrigenda corrects the record that amended pleadings were filed and changes wording, without altering the judgment's decision.
Corrigenda – correction of court record – amended writ and statement of claim filed 31 January 2022 – substitution of wording in paragraph 40 – corrigenda does not affect decision or ratio decidendi.
|
23 October 2024 |
|
|
18 October 2024 |
|
Limitation under the Public Authorities Protection Ordinance may not bar claims of malicious public‑office abuse; evidence of motive is required.
Public Authorities Protection Ordinance – six‑month limitation – applicability where public officer acted bona fide versus maliciously; PAPA jurisprudence; necessity to hear evidence of motive before limitation can be applied on strike‑out; abuse of process and pre‑issue delay; lost documents (Hurricane Ike) insufficient alone to strike out.
|
15 October 2024 |
| September 2024 |
|
|
Beneficial interests are ‘property’ under the MCO; partial adjustment permitted and strike-out of ancillary claim dismissed.
Matrimonial Causes Ordinance – ancillary relief – property adjustment orders – beneficial interest constitutes ‘property’ – court may adjust shares/beneficial interests under s28(1)(a) – s30(1) sale power follows where s27/28 order made – strike-out inappropriate; amendment is proper remedy.
|
24 September 2024 |
|
Applicants failed to establish a real possibility of apparent bias against the Commissioner; application dismissed.
Public law — Judicial review — Apparent bias — Test of the fair-minded and informed observer — Disclosure to Integrity Commission — Limits of Integrity Commission advice — Declaratory relief in public law — Proper forum for alleged Public Service Handbook breaches.
|
24 September 2024 |
| August 2024 |
|
|
|
22 August 2024 |