The following cases were recently reported by the Hon Mr Justice Bokhary. See below for His Lordship’s remarks and observations by way of Editor’s Notes.

CS Asia Opportunities Master Fund v Zhou Haohui [2024] 5 HKLRD 1

"It will be noticed that the Judge saw the undertaking as “a key feature” of the case.”

Mak Rachel Wing Nam v Ching Kai Chung [2024] 5 HKLRD 17

“This case provides an illustration of the circumstances in which an O.59 r.2A(8) direction will be made. It is also to be noted that at para.3 the Court of Appeal observed that a firm of solicitors had filed a notice to act for the plaintiff in the Court of Appeal with an annotation, which the Court of Appeal described as “curious”, that it was on the record “limited to correspondence”. The Court of Appeal went on to say that it is not clear what that annotation means and whether a firm of solicitors may purport to confine its role on the record in such a manner. It was considered unnecessary to delve into those questions on this occasion. Clearly, solicitors should think twice before seeking to confine their role on the record in this or any other way.”

HKSAR v Li Cheuk Wah (李卓華) [2024] 5 HKLRD 43

“This judgment is obviously important — as would be any specimen directions to which it may lead.”

AD v RT [2024] 5 HKLRD 224

“This case illustrates the role of a single joint expert, the effect of the parties’ agreement to such an expert’s valuations and the nature of and limits to the quasi-inquisitorial role of the court in ancillary relief litigation.”