Hong Kong Case Law

鍾玲 對 簡兆祺及另六人

Court

Court of Appeal

Case number

CACV471/2024

The appellate court held there was no error in the lower judge's exercise of discretion. The appellant's claims against the first defendant were previously resolved in DCCJ 2617/2016 and therefore abusive; claims against the second defendant were derivative and should have been raised earlier (Henderson v Henderson); claims against the housing authority lacked factual basis as the penalty period had expired and the appellant remained in occupation. Accordingly the strike‑out was upheld and costs awarded to the respondents in quantified amounts.

Source excerpt

• Henderson v henderson doctrine
• Strike out under order 18 rule 19 (cap.4a)
• Res judicata/abuse of process
• Costs assessment

Read case analysis

速曉明 對 畢馬威會計師事務所 (KPMG)

Court

Court of First Instance

Case number

HCA553/2025

The court found the proposed appeal (CACV 334/2026) had no arguable points; the applicant's purported new evidence did not support the claim and no basis was shown that the appellate court would permit it. Consequently the stay application was refused and the applicant was ordered to pay the respondent's costs of the stay application on an indemnity (recompense) basis because the underlying claims had been found frivolous, abusive and an abuse of process.

Source excerpt

• Stay of execution
• Interlocutory relief
• Indemnity costs
• Frivolous and abusive claims
• Admission of new evidence on appeal

Read case analysis

韓仁生 對 黃寶紅

Court

District Court

Case number

DCCJ2822/2023

Leave to appeal refused because the appellant failed to identify any error in the impugned decision, merely repeated previously rejected arguments, and the proposed new evidence failed the Ladd v Marshall test (no demonstration of reasonable efforts to obtain it earlier and no realistic prospect of affecting the outcome); the impugned decision that the claim disclosed no reasonable cause and was malicious/abusive stands, so there is no reasonable prospect of success nor any other reason in the interests of justice to grant leave. The appellant is ordered to pay the respondent's costs of the a…

Source excerpt

• Leave to appeal under s63a(2)
• Ladd v marshall new evidence test
• Reasonable prospect of success
• Malicious pleading
• Costs assessment

Read case analysis

孫麗鶯 對 香港汽車保險局

Court

Court of Appeal

Case number

CACV328/2024

The Court dismissed the applicant’s repeat applications as having no legal basis and being an abuse of process and a waste of court resources; consequently the applications for leave to appeal and for a stay of execution were refused and the applicant ordered to pay the respondent’s costs on an indemnity basis assessed at HK$35,000.

Source excerpt

• Permission to appeal to final court
• Stay of execution
• Assessment of costs
• Abuse of process for repetitive applications

Read case analysis

李成足 對 松美工程公司僱主許重暖及另一人

Court

Court of First Instance

Case number

HCPI810/2013

The four summons applications were dismissed as abusive, an impermissible attempt to reopen matters finally decided by trial and appeal (res judicata and functus officio), and on their face time‑barred; the court therefore exercised its inherent/common law and statutory powers to impose a further restriction order requiring leave of the nominated High Court judge before the plaintiff may bring any further applications in HCPI 810/2013, with detailed procedural safeguards.

Source excerpt

• Res judicata (finality/functus officio)
• Restriction order/leave to apply
• Registration of judgment
• Joining third parties
• Transfer of proceedings
• Statute of limitations

Read case analysis

郭文英以勤學樂園之名營業 對 黎嘉年及另一人

Court

District Court

Case number

DCCJ3156/2023

The court refused leave for the two out‑of‑time appeals because the plaintiff provided no reasonable explanation for long unexplained delay and the proposed appeals had no real prospects and would amount to abuse of process; the in‑time appeal against the name correction was dismissed on the merits because the correction was a lawful and necessary procedural amendment and the costs orders were a reasonable exercise of discretion; punitive damages claims were dismissed as re‑litigation after the cause of action had been struck out.

Source excerpt

• Late filing/extension of time
• Costs follow the event
• Correction of party name (trading as)
• Striking out/withdrawal of claim
• Punitive damages claim
• Deference to hearing officer discretion

Read case analysis

YEUNG YAT v. SIN TUNG HING AND OTHERS

Court

Court of First Instance

Case number

HCA1282/2003

The court struck out defendants’ validity defence and Yau’s beneficial ownership claim, holding the Mainland SPC judgment final and conclusive and barring relitigation.

• Share transfer validity
• Beneficial ownership
• Issue estoppel
• Cause of action estoppel
• Henderson v henderson abuse
• Foreign judgment finality

Read case analysis

CHIEF HOLDINGS (H.K.) LTD AND ANOTHER v. HE CHENGUANG AND OTHERS

Court

Court of First Instance

Case number

HCA2415/2014

Leave to appeal was refused in a strike-out dispute over issue estoppel, abuse of process and pleading particulars arising from Hong Kong and Mainland proceedings.

• Issue estoppel
• Henderson abuse
• Strike out applications
• Particulars of pleading
• Service out of jurisdiction
• Issue-estoppel

Read case analysis

王欽賢 對 高景波

Court

District Court

Case number

DCCJ1408/2023

The second out‑of‑time application was dismissed because the delay (over four months) was serious, no explanation for the delay was provided despite repeated direction, and the applicant failed to identify any error in the 2023 or 2025 orders or any arguable grounds of appeal; even if the 2025 order were set aside the first (already withdrawn) application and the original grounds lack any prospect of success (the first was over a year late with no explanation). The application was therefore abusive and frivolous and costs were ordered in favour of the plaintiff to be assessed on a compensator…

Source excerpt

• Leave to appeal out of time
• Extension of time
• Undertaking/injunction
• Costs assessment
• Effect of bankruptcy on litigation
• Counterclaim procedure

Read case analysis

鍾玲 對 警員梁駿喬及另二人

Court

Court of First Instance

Case number

HCPI143/2025

The court struck out the claim against the third defendant because the statement of claim failed to disclose a reasonable cause of action, contained serious allegations without necessary factual particulars, amounted to frivolous/malicious and abusive litigation, and the plaintiff had not obtained the High Court's permission under section 69 of the Mental Health Ordinance; accordingly the proceedings against the third defendant were dismissed and costs awarded to the third defendant.

Source excerpt

• Order 18 rule 19 striking-out
• Mental health ordinance s69 permission to sue
• Frivolous and vexatious claims
• Failure to plead particulars
• Costs

Read case analysis