Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
Hong Kong decisions
Decisions matching the current search
The court dismissed a third-party application to discharge undertakings and refused a further delay in disclosure, extending compliance to 17 April 2026.
The court held that service by ordinary post to the registered office and other addresses was valid (none of the mail was returned and the defendant attended the hearing), the defendant had notice and opportunity to produce the material, the appeal period was extended as a discretionary matter, and there was no legal error or unreasonableness in the hearing officer's costs assessment; therefore the appeal was dismissed and costs awarded to the plaintiff.
Source excerpt
The Court of First Instance stayed a disclosure order pending determination of the defendant’s application for leave to appeal, finding the appeal would be partially nugatory otherwise.
The court found the third defendant had complied with the original disclosure order; the applicant's fresh requests arose from errors in the applicant's original particulars and were not properly pursued as amendments; the applicant failed to satisfy Order 24 rr.7,7A,8 that the further material was relevant, in the defendant's control, and necessary; the requested transaction‑trail and second‑tier account details were too broad and impracticable given mixing of funds. Therefore the further disclosure summons was dismissed and costs awarded to the third defendant.
Source excerpt
The Court granted an unless order for further asset disclosure under a Mareva injunction, with strike-out of the defence if the defendant does not comply by 12 December 2025.
鑑於控方在審訊前及審訊期間未向辯方披露PW1及PW4所持有且與案有關的WhatsApp截圖及相關材料，該等未披露資料在本案中直接關涉核心爭點（款項用途）及證人可信性，且令本院在重審時無法確定在毫無合理疑點下被告有罪，故上訴成立，撤銷所有定罪並擱置判處。
Source excerpt
Applicant's out‑of‑time leave to appeal was refused because the court accepted the explanation for a 10‑day delay but concluded the proposed appeal lacked a reasonable prospect of success; accordingly costs were properly awarded to the defendants and ordered to be summarily assessed with procedural directions.
Source excerpt
The court held that because the 2022 case management order requiring delivery of document copies had been effectively modified by subsequent directions, there was no established breach justifying an immediate unless order; the plaintiff's three‑day delay in filing the appeal was excused on the merits because the proposed appeals were arguable; the proposed amendments were permitted because they did not materially change the cause of action, were substantially reflected in earlier witness statements, and would not delay the upcoming case management hearing; strict disclosure deadlines were imp…
Source excerpt
The Family Court dismissed the husband’s bid to reduce or end spousal maintenance, found he had means to pay, and granted the wife limited additional maintenance and arrears relief.
Court found both parties have sufficient income to meet their needs; HK$360,000 withdrawals were held to be post-separation savings of the applicant and not matrimonial property for automatic sharing; although applicant had not been fully candid and adverse inferences were drawn, discretionary consideration of needs meant the HK$360,000 would not be used to satisfy either party's claims; respondent was found to have concealed some monthly savings estimated at HK$156,000 to be included in family asset calculation; MPF balances were discounted by 30%; on the overall assessment both maintenance…
Source excerpt
Explore more
