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 appeal challenged a Master’s procedural directions in an examination of judgment debtor. Cheng J held the Master could adjourn to hear Legal Aid’s position and dismissed the appeal.
The Court refused an out-of-time leave application for judicial review in a non-refoulement case, finding the two-year delay grossly inordinate and unjustified.
The mandatory requirement in Order 53 r3(2)(a) that Form 86 state the relief sought and the grounds was not met; the court may refuse leave where the form is effectively blank and the relief cannot be ascertained from supporting affidavits. The fresh evidence application failed because most documents existed prior to the leave application and did not satisfy the first and second Ladd v Marshall conditions. Challenges to the Deputy Registrar's directions on bundle preparation and procedure were unfounded. Therefore leave was properly refused and the appeal is dismissed.
Source excerpt
The court varied a nisi costs order after trial, awarding the defendants costs and releasing a sanctioned payment because the plaintiff failed to do better than the offer.
The court varied a nisi costs order after trial, applying O.22 r.23, setting enhanced interest at 3% above judgment rate and ordering set-off against costs.
The Court of First Instance ordered the plaintiff to pay the 4th defendant’s costs of a withdrawn discovery summons for police statements referred to in witness statements.
Permission for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to demonstrate an arguable case that the Legal Aid Department's refusal or the Deputy Registrar's dismissal was legally irrational, procedurally unfair or otherwise outside the range of reasonable decisions; the medical evidence was objectively insufficient to establish causation and, coupled with jurisdictional concerns and low likely damages, refusal to grant legal aid was a reasonable exercise of discretion.
Source excerpt
The court clarified that its earlier costs order was made without invoking section 17 of the Legal Aid Ordinance, and ordered no costs on the clarification summons.
Because the defendant made a valid payment into court that was open for acceptance until 13 July 2022 and the plaintiff failed to obtain a better outcome at trial, the court applied High Court Rules Order 22 rule 23: plaintiff's recoverable costs are limited to the period up to 13 July 2022 and to be assessed on the District Court scale; plaintiff must indemnify defendant for costs from 14 July 2022 on the compensation/indemnity basis; the court approved a set-off of HKD126,358.78 of the judgment total under Legal Aid Ordinance s18A(4) against defendant's post-2024 costs and ordered release f…
Source excerpt
The District Court dismissed a costs summons, upheld an order nisi for indemnity costs, and ordered the plaintiff to pay HK$54,315 forthwith.
Explore more
