New judgments

We are satisfied that the following question put forward by the applicant is of the requisite importance and grant leave to appeal in respect of the same, namely:

The plaintiff, father of 2 children, issued an originating summons (“ OS ”) on 27 February 2025 seeking an order for the return of the 2 children to Hong Kong and to make them wards of the Hong Kong court. He named as the 1 st defendant his wife the mother of the 2 children, and as the 2 nd and 3 rd defendants his wife’s parents. We shall refer to the persons involved as “ Father ”, “ Mother ”, “ Children ” (being a “ Daughter ” born in June 2008 and a “ Son ” born in July 2012) and “ Gra

本庭於2023年6月20日、2023年12月28日及2024年6月7日作出判決，分別撤銷第一答辯人於本案（CAMP 276/2022）的各項申請，並命令第一答辯人支付呈請人的訟費。於2026年1月5日，第一答辯人存檔誓章，申請撤銷本庭就本案所作的全部訟費命令。這些訟費命令原本已是絕對命令，或已由暫準命令成為絕對命令，而且提出上訴的期限早已屆滿。第一答辯人的申請明顯缺乏法律基礎。因此，本庭下令撤銷她的申請，不作訟費命令。

The plaintiff and the defendants (mother and son, who are shareholders and directors of Marco Gainer Limited ("MG")) entered into a provisional agreement for sale and purchase dated 11 March 2023 for the sale of the entire issued share capital of MG, which owned certain properties in Hong Kong. Under clause 5 of the PASP, the defendants were required to deliver all documents relating to MG within 14 days, i.e. by 25 March 2023. The defendants failed to provide the MG documents despite requests by the plaintiff's solicitors on 31 March 2023 and 26 April 2023. The plaintiff accepted the defendants' repudiation by letter dated 8 May 2023. The deposit of HK$7,777,600 was held by the defendants' solicitors as stakeholder.

申請人（原審D9） 於2024年8月26日在區域法院法官練錦鴻（原審法官）席前承認一項「串謀處理已知道或相信為代表從可公訴罪的得益的財產」罪 [1] （控罪三）（下簡稱為串謀洗黑錢罪），並於2024年9月12日被判處監禁40 個月。申請人不服，提出刑罰上訴許可申請，並於2025年11月5日獲准保釋等候上訴。

The plaintiffs are the registered owners of the ground floor of a three-storey building at No. 67, Lok Lo Ha Village, Shatin. The first and second floors are owned by separate owners. The 2/F Assignment dated 26 October 1981 granted the second floor owner the exclusive use, occupation and enjoyment of the second floor and the 'Main Roof thereover'. The Deed of Mutual Covenant of the same date granted the second floor owner the sole and exclusive right to the second floor and the Main Roof, subject to the rights of other owners to use the entrances, staircases, landings and passages. The owner of the second floor allowed the defendant, China Mobile Hong Kong, by way of licences, to install antennas, a large cabinet with ancillary equipment, and wires and cables on the roof. The antennas were attached to the inner side of the parapet walls on the roof, the cabinet was attached to the vertical wall of the staircase hood, and some wires were attached to the inner side of the parapet walls. The plaintiffs claimed trespass and nuisance, alleging that these installations were on the common parts of the Building.