Hong Kong Case Law

覃錫鴻 對 一田有限公司

Court

Court of Appeal

Case number

CACV569/2024

The application to admit further evidence was refused because the applicant failed the first Ladd v Marshall requirement: the documents were in existence before the strike-out hearing and the applicant did not show she had exercised reasonable diligence to obtain or explain non-production at that hearing; therefore the summons for further evidence was dismissed and costs awarded to respondent.

Source excerpt

• Admission of further evidence on appeal
• Ladd v marshall criteria
• Jurisdiction (labour tribunal)
• Striking out
• Costs assessment

Read case analysis

LI XIAO YI v. TANG CHUNG WAH (also known as ALAN CHUNG WAH TANG)

Court

Court of Appeal

Case number

CAMP35/2026

The Court of Appeal refused leave to appeal against a refusal to recuse, holding the judge’s criticism of the defendant did not show apparent or actual bias.

• Apparent bias
• Actual bias
• Recusal
• Committal for contempt
• Leave to appeal
• Judicial conduct

Read case analysis

RE VALDEZ JEYSON BALDO

Court

Court of Appeal

Case number

CAMP77/2023

The Court of Appeal dismissed an out-of-time motion for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal, citing unexplained delay, non-compliance, and no arguable issue.

• Leave to appeal to court of final appeal
• Extension of time
• Section 22(1)(b) court of final appeal ordinance
• Abandonment of written submissions
• Procedural compliance
• Leave-to-appeal

Read case analysis

王艷 對 陳穎懷及另一人

Court

Court of Appeal

Case number

CAMP64/2025

The Court refused out‑of‑time permission because the applicant did not offer any explanation for the two‑month delay, the asserted grounds of appeal were misconceived or had no realistic prospect of success (including fundamental misunderstandings of recusal procedure and procedural rules on pleading and expert evidence), and the procedural delay in a judgment being issued beyond three months did not amount to illegality. Consequently the extension of time was not justified and the application was dismissed with costs.

Source excerpt

• Leave to appeal out of time
• Extension of time
• Recusal of judge
• Costs
• Procedural compliance

Read case analysis

覃錫鴻 對 金至尊珠寶(香港)有限公司, 金至尊管理服務有限公司

Court

Court of First Instance

Case number

HCA1379/2024

The application for permission to appeal was dismissed because it was a second, procedurally incorrect attempt that lacked any real prospect of success; the court confirmed the proper appellate route under Order 59 r.21 and found no basis to extend time, and therefore refused the application and awarded costs to the respondents.

Source excerpt

• Extension of time
• Leave to appeal
• Striking out
• Jurisdiction

Read case analysis

TSANG LIN YAU LINDA (sue as the Administratrix De Bonis Non of the Estate of the late LEE WONG FUN CHONG also known as LEE WONG FUN CHONG Florence) v. LEE JUN SING AND OTHERS

Court

Court of First Instance

Case number

HCA1114/2022

The Court of First Instance dismissed leave to appeal and a fresh-evidence application in a probate costs dispute, holding the grounds were not reasonably arguable.

• Leave to appeal under s.14(3)(e) hco
• Admission of fresh evidence (ladd v marshall)
• Beddoe orders/indemnity of personal representatives
• Jurisdiction to order personal liability for costs
• Leave-to-appeal
• Fresh-evidence

Read case analysis

RE PHAM THI HUONG

Court

Court of Appeal

Case number

CACV118/2023

The Court of Appeal refused leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal, holding the grounds were factual, unarguable, and raised no public importance issue.

• Leave to appeal
• Public importance test under s22(1)(b)
• Arguability of grounds
• Leave-to-appeal
• Public-importance-test
• Judicial-review

Read case analysis

RE DONG XUAN CHUNG

Court

Court of Appeal

Case number

CACV71/2024

The Court of Appeal dismissed a motion for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal, holding that no question of great general or public importance was shown.

• Leave to appeal
• Public importance
• Statutory interpretation
• Extension of time
• Leave-to-appeal
• Judicial-review

Read case analysis

RE MR TIMOTHY WYNN OWEN KC

Court

Court of First Instance

Case number

HCMP1213/2025

The Court of First Instance refused Mr Timothy Wynn Owen KC’s ad hoc admission for a renewed leave-to-appeal hearing, finding the issues were not unusually complex and did not justify overseas counsel.

• Ad hoc admission of overseas counsel
• Restraint orders
• Disclosure orders
• Leave to appeal
• Over-restraint
• Costs of admission proceedings

Read case analysis

RE DIMALANTA SALOME LUPOS

Court

Court of Appeal

Case number

CACV216/2024

The Court of Appeal refused leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal, holding the applicant had not identified any issue of great general or public importance under s 22(1)(b).

• Leave to appeal
• Judicial review
• Public importance test
• Court of final appeal ordinance s22(1)(b)
• Leave-to-appeal
• Judicial-review

Read case analysis