New judgments

The dispute concerns a parcel of New Territories land. The applicant (D2) claims through a 1983 Lease from Madam Tang, which was registrable but not registered, asserting that it operated as an assignment of the leasehold estate under the Milmo principle. The respondents (the registered owners) hold subsequent assignments for value which were duly registered. The applicant relied on his status as lawful lessee and the operation of the 1983 Lease as assignment under the Milmo principle. The block lease over the Parent Lot was subject to renewal/extension provisions, and in 1973 New Territories leases were renewed under the New Territories (Renewable Crown Leases) Ordinance Cap 152, though this was apparently not raised in the lower courts.

On 16 April 2020, the Court of Appeal refused to certify questions proposed by the applicants for their application for leave to appeal to this Court. [1]

申請人面對一項「危險駕駛引致他人身體受嚴重傷害」控罪，違反香港法例第374章《道路交通條例》第36A條，他否認控罪，但承認不小心駕駛；案件在區域法院進行審訊，於2023年6月9日被原審法官（區域法院暫委法官勞潔儀）裁定罪名成立。申請人被判處200小時社會服務令以及取消駕駛資格2年，並須自費完成駕駛改進課程。

The Competition Commission instituted two related enforcement proceedings (CTEA 2/2022 and CTEA 2/2023) against companies and individuals for alleged anti-competitive conduct, including price-fixing, market sharing, and bid-rigging in the supply of air-conditioning works in Hong Kong between 2015 and 2019. ATAL Building Services Engineering Limited and two of its employees entered into Cooperation Agreements with the Commission in November 2022, admitting liability for cartel conduct and agreeing to provide information and assistance to the Commission against the non-settling parties. The Johnson Controls parties (Johnson Controls Hong Kong Limited, York International (Northern Asia) Limited, and Johnson Controls International PLC) and a former employee, Lee Yui Ming, contested the allegations. The JC Parties sought disclosure of the correspondence and communications between the Commission and ATAL and its employees relating to the Cooperation Agreements, which ATAL resisted on the basis of without prejudice privilege.

By an agreement dated 4 July 2003, the plaintiff agreed to purchase the shareholding of the 1st and 2nd defendants in the 4th defendant (a Hong Kong company), which wholly owned the 5th defendant, a foreign-owned enterprise in the PRC that held the right to develop Lot 22 in Xiamen. The price was RMB 120 million, and PRC law governed with a CIETAC arbitration clause. After the plaintiff paid RMB 5 million deposit, the 1st and 2nd defendants terminated the Agreement in November 2003. The 5th defendant then obtained regulatory approvals and began development of the Land based on its own design from around May 2005, with pre-sales commencing in June 2006 and 95% of residential units sold by end of 2006. During the arbitration, the defendants secretly restructured the shareholding so that all shares of the 4th defendant were held by the 3rd defendant, making performance of share transfer impossible. On 27 October 2006, the arbitral tribunal awarded damages of RMB 1,275,000 for delay and ordered continued performance of the Agreement. Enforcement on the Mainland failed because the 1st and 2nd defendants were Hong Kong companies; the plaintiff then obtained a Statutory Judgment in Hong Kong in October 2007.

This is the Debtor’s application for security for costs of the Petitioner’s appeal (“ the Appeal ”) against the order made by Deputy High Court Judge Alan Kwong on 3 April 2025 (“ the Order ”) dismissing the Petitioner’s Amended Petition for the Debtor’s bankruptcy.

The 1st to 3rd plaintiffs succeeded in their appeal in CACV 546/2024, which arose out of HCA 631/2022. This decision deals with the costs of the appeal and of certain interlocutory proceedings as between the plaintiffs and the 12th defendant. In the court below, DHCJ Phoebe Man had adopted the conventional approach, but on appeal this Court decided not to follow that approach and applied a new approach instead. The interlocutory proceedings in question were the Joinder Summons, the Evidence Summons, the plaintiffs' summons dated 18 December 2024, the Re-Re-Amended Writ of Summons and Statement of Claim, and the Amendment Summons.