New judgments

原告人於2025年5月6日發出傳票，就高等法院原訟法庭暫委法官廖文健 (「 廖法官 」) 於2025年4月29日作出的判決，向上訴法庭申請上訴許可。如下文所述，原告人應是就廖法官於2025年2月20日所作出的判決 (「 該判決 」)，拒絕原告人依照香港法例第136章《精神健康條例》(「 該條例 」) 第69條提出之申請，向上訴法庭提出上訴許可的進一步申請。

This is an application by the defendants (separately “ D1 ” and “ D2 ”) for stay of execution of the order of Tam J made on 30 May 2025 (“ Order ”) granting summary judgment to the plaintiff in two actions, HCA 2039/2023 and HCA 2040/2023, pending the defendants’ appeal against the Order.

R1 was the sole proprietor of Jim & Co from November 2013, and R2 joined as a limited and part-time partner of the Jordan branch in March 2015. R1 employed Tony Chan, who falsely claimed to be a retired certified public accountant, as the Firm's accounts clerk; Tony Chan was not qualified to authorise withdrawals from client accounts. The Firm's 2016/17 and 2017/18 accountant's reports, filed belatedly in November 2017 and November 2018, identified multiple breaches of the Solicitors' Accounts Rules, including paying client money into the office account rather than the clients account. The irregularities were extensive and systemic, with one notable example involving approximately $625 million deposited into the office account on 5 November 2018. The Law Society intervened the Firm on 20 June 2019, and R1 later claimed Tony Chan had secretly misappropriated funds. The Firm's clients account had a remaining balance of approximately $14.8 million against justified client claims of about $6.1 million.

Pang Yeuk Chi (the Father) operated a furniture business in Hong Kong and had seven children from two marriages. He purchased a residential property at Kwai Fu Building, Kwai Chung (the Kwai Fu Property) in 1986, registering it in the sole name of his son Pang Kam Bor (the Defendant), then aged 22, because the Father and his second wife already had two business properties mortgaged and could not obtain favourable further mortgage terms. The Father paid the entire purchase price, all mortgage instalments until 1991, and all subsequent outgoings and maintenance costs. The Defendant moved out to a wooden hut in 1988 and was physically absent from the property for 36 years. The Father demanded the return of the property in 2014 and 2020; the Defendant's responses claimed only that the purchase money belonged to him, with the gift defence first raised in his formal defence dated 11 March 2021. The Father died on 9 November 2022, and his executor (the Plaintiff, Pang Kam Chuen) continued the action.

Wise Pearl Limited (WPL) was incorporated in Hong Kong on 9 May 1991 and carried on the manufacture of sports and leisure bags and military textile products through processing arrangements with two Mainland entities, namely 寶安縣石岩鎮官田英寶製品廠 (YBF) and Baoxing Backpack (An-Xi) Co Ltd (BXL), a wholly foreign-owned enterprise whose investor was Pearlcorp Industrial Limited. WPL filed Profits Tax returns for the years of assessment 2000/01 to 2012/13 claiming that 50% of its profits were attributable to the Mainland manufacturing activities and should not be assessed to Profits Tax, and claimed industrial building allowance (IBA) and commercial building allowance (CBA) relating to certain Buildings located in the Mainland. Following a tax audit commenced in July 2009, the Assessor accepted a 50:50 apportionment in respect of YBF-manufactured goods but assessed all profits from BXL-manufactured goods to Profits Tax, and restricted the IBA to years from 2011/12 based on the Real Estate Certificate dated 27 April 2011.