IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
HIGH COURT ACTION NO 207 OF 2013
R E A S O N S F O R D E C I S I O N
1. In a decision handed down on 6 April 2016 (“Apr 2016 decision”), the defendants’ application for:
2. The defendants considered the said refusal was wrong, and took out this application seeking leave to appeal against it. At theend of the hearing, the leave application was also refused.
3. The reasons for the refusal appear below.
4. For convenience, unless otherwise expressly so stated, the same abbreviations used in the Apr 2016 decision will be used below.
5. The background leading to this action (and the 2015 judgment) has been summarized at para 3 to 7 of the 2015 judgment and will notbe repeated here.
6. The grounds in support of this application can be summarized as:
7. None of the above grounds has any merit.
8. As regards para 6(1) above:
9. As regards para 6(2) above:
10. As regards para 6(3) above, the point has been expressly discussed and determined (with reasons) (para 7(3) and (4), 13 to 14 and19 to 23, the Apr 2016 decision).
11. Finally, as regards para 6(4) above, the point has also been expressly discussed and determined (with reasons) (para 7(1) and (2),8 to 10 and 12, the Apr 2016 decision).
12. The parties’ written submissions also mentioned various other points. These have not been expressly set out or dealt with above. This is so only because of the need to balance between the length of the reasons for decision and its comprehension. It does notmean those other points are thought to be irrelevant (or have been overlooked). To avoid doubt, those other points have also beenconsidered.
Mr Vincent Lam, instructed by Cham & Co, for the plaintiffs
Mr George Chu, instructed by Shum Wong & Co, for the defendants