The Defendants refused entry of the Plaintiff’s expert and staff from government departments into their property at the time the seepage subsisted. Hence, the Plaintiff could only rely on inferences to establish that the water seepage originated from the Defendants’ premises.

The Court of Appeal held that whatever personal/familial disputes between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, they are not relevant to the present appeal; moreover, since the Plaintiff commenced the relevant actions in her personal capacity, she had no right to withhold distributing the estate.  

The Court held that unless the evidence is overwhelming, the Court should strive not to find favour with a plea which is based on an allegation that a document is sham.  The allegation was bare, lacking in documentary evidence and therefore unbelievable.

The Court accepted that the question of whether a party is required to act through a next friend should ordinarily be determined by the party himself or by those caring for him (perhaps with the advice of a solicitor), without the need for inquiry by the Court.

Mr Harjang Singh was the subject of a deportation order issued in 2003 as a result of several serious criminal convictions. Following a 2017 conviction for blackmail, Mr Singh was detained at Castle Peak Bay Immigration Centre pending deportation section 32(3) of the Immigration Ordinance (Cap 115).

The Registrar held that the overall impression created by the applied-for marks shared a “very low” degree of similarity with the Opponent’s earlier marks, and use of the applied-for marks would not likely cause confusion on the part of the public or average consumer.

The learned Master agreed with the Defendant’s submission that the alleged agreement’s terms are unenforceable for uncertainty. In particular, the consideration, scope of services to be rendered by the Plaintiff and the late father’s payment obligation all lacked certainty or clarity.

The plaintiff claims against the defendants for libel, malicious falsehood, and breach of confidence related to the publication of two emails. The relevant emails contained allegations of sporting misconduct on the Plaintiff’s part that allegedly took place during a ladies’ lawn bowls game.

The Master struck out these claims on the grounds that the Plaintiff had no locus to sue on behalf of the estate and/or in her capacity as beneficiary, and that her pleadings in support of the action on the alleged agreement with the 1st Defendant is defective.

The Court of Final Appeal confirmed that the “leverage” created by the prospect of a winding-up — as opposed to the making of a winding-up order — is a legitimate form of “benefit” under this requirement.