|
Citation
|
Judgment date
|
| November 2019 |
|
|
Interim injunction to halt implementation of digital tax stamps refused; public interest and operative legislation prevailed.
Tax law – temporary injunction – digital tax stamps (DTS) – challenge to regulations as ultra vires – public interest – reluctance to suspend operation of legislation – lis pendens/exhaustion of remedies.
|
5 November 2019 |
|
Court refused applicants’ request to restrain digital tax‑stamp implementation, prioritising public interest and statutory operation of law.
Tax law – Digital tax stamps – Interim injunction – restraint of public authority; judicial reluctance to suspend operation of legislation; requirements for interim injunction: prima facie case, irreparable harm, balance of convenience; issues of time‑bar, lis pendens and alternative remedy before Tax Appeals Tribunal.
|
5 November 2019 |
|
Interim protective orders require full disclosure and cannot be used to frustrate ongoing execution; application dismissed with costs.
Insolvency Act – Interim Protective Order – stay of execution – need for full disclosure of creditors, liabilities and assets – abuse of court process – competence of application where execution/warrant already issued.
|
4 November 2019 |
|
A delayed administrative decision, absent a time-bound court order and later served, does not automatically amount to contempt.
* Contempt of court – requirement of wilful disobedience to a court order – purpose to safeguard rule of law. * Administrative law/Electoral law – jurisdiction of Electoral Commission to determine election complaints post-declaration of results. * Remedies – contempt proceedings inappropriate for adjudicating the merits of administrative/electoral decisions; appeals or judicial review are proper avenues. * Effect of subsequent compliance – where decision is later served, contempt application may be overtaken by events.
|
4 November 2019 |
|
Applicant's malicious prosecution claim dismissed; prosecution had reasonable cause and claim against government was time‑barred.
Malicious prosecution – essential ingredients (institution of proceedings, lack of reasonable/probable cause, malice, termination in favour of plaintiff) – reasonable and probable cause judged objectively; Limitation law – actions against the Government barred after two years (Civil Procedure and Limitation (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act Cap 72 s.3(1)); Arrest and prosecution – police and DPP duties and sanctioning of files; Damages – plaintiff must prove inconvenience/loss causally linked to wrongful prosecution.
|
1 November 2019 |
|
No malicious prosecution proved; prosecution had reasonable cause and claim against the State was time-barred, suit dismissed with costs.
* Malicious prosecution — elements: institution of proceedings; lack of reasonable and probable cause; malice; termination in favour of plaintiff.
* Reasonable and probable cause — objective test based on materials available to prosecutor.
* Malice — requires improper motive or reckless disregard; not inferred merely from institution of prosecution.
* Limitation — actions against the State barred after statutory period (Civil Procedure and Limitation (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, s.3(1)).
* Remedies — damages discretionary; costs follow the event.
|
1 November 2019 |
|
Commissioner’s rectification of the land register was irrational and ultra vires; court quashed the amendment order.
Land law; judicial review of administrative action; rectification of land register; procedural fairness; ultra vires and irrationality; certiorari to quash amendment of title; damages not automatic in judicial review; costs awarded to successful applicants.
|
1 November 2019 |
|
Commissioner’s title-rectification decision quashed as irrational and ultra vires; applicants awarded costs, no damages.
Administrative law – Judicial review of land registration rectification – Natural justice/fair hearing – Ultra vires and irrational exercise of statutory power – Certiorari quashing amendment of register – Damages not automatic in judicial review – Costs awarded to applicants (except 4th applicant's counsel).
|
1 November 2019 |
|
Plaintiff failed to prove malicious prosecution; defendants had reasonable cause and claim against the State was time-barred.
Malicious prosecution – elements (institution of proceedings; absence of reasonable/probable cause; malice; termination in favour) – Reasonable and probable cause assessed objectively – Malice requires improper purpose or reckless disregard – Limitation: actions in tort against the Government barred after two years (s.3(1) Civil Procedure and Limitation Act) – Damages and costs.
|
1 November 2019 |
|
Statutory demand set aside where a bona fide substantial dispute exists and insolvency may not be used for debt collection.
Insolvency law – statutory demand – bona fide substantial dispute as to debt – insolvency not a substitute for debt collection; judgment creditors should first pursue execution and other remedies.
|
1 November 2019 |
|
Commissioner’s title-rectification was ultra vires and irrational; certiorari granted to quash the amendment order.
Administrative law – Judicial review – Illegality, irrationality and procedural impropriety – Commissioner for Land Registration’s power to rectify title – Ultra vires exercise of power to evade prior court judgments – Certiorari to quash amendment order dated 27/11/2018.
|
1 November 2019 |
|
Registration of a company under a name confusingly similar to an existing company was unlawful; plaintiff’s trademark registration upheld.
Company law – registration of company names – misleading or confusing names – s.37 Companies Act; Trade mark law – registration, publication and distinctiveness – failure to object during statutory period; Property – proof of title and ownership of church land; Remedies – cancellation of registration, injunctions, damages and costs.
|
1 November 2019 |
|
Freezing was initially lawful on suspicion, but an almost year‑long freeze pending investigations became unreasonable and was lifted.
Anti‑Money Laundering Act – powers of Financial Intelligence Authority to halt financial activity on suspicion of money‑laundering; administrative discretion and principle of legality; limits on prolonged freezing of assets; right to timely resolution and protection of third‑party interests; judicial supervision of state investigatory delays.
|
1 November 2019 |