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 held that a HK$5.61 million promissory note was not part of the deceased’s estate because it was intended to be enforced only on specified triggering events that never occurred.
The Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal in a fraud and misrepresentation dispute over Pui Ching name-and-insignia ownership, finding no actionable representation, inducement, or timely claim.
The court refused leave to appeal and a stay after granting the defendant unconditional leave to defend, holding the proposed appeal lacked a reasonable prospect of success.
The claim was struck out and the action dismissed because the pleaded cause of action was duplicative of and already finally determined by the earlier DCPI 617/2022 proceedings (abuse of process/res judicata), and in any event the claim was clearly time‑barred under the Limitation Ordinance s27 with s22 inapplicable; the plaintiff’s pleadings failed to disclose on their face a reasonable cause of action or causal link supported by material particulars, justifying strike out under Order 18 r19.
Source excerpt
The court found on credibility and documentary/aerial/photo evidence that plaintiffs and their parents exercised exclusive factual possession with the requisite animus from at least late 1967 through 1987 (a continuous 20-year period), that defendants failed to prove any valid lease or consent negating adverse possession, and therefore by operation of the Limitation Ordinance the defendants' registered title was extinguished by 2006; consequent later acts by defendants or their purported tenants could not defeat the possessory title and plaintiffs were entitled to a declaration of possessory…
Source excerpt
The statement of claim was struck out and the action dismissed because the pleading disclosed no reasonable cause of action, contained only unparticularised and serious allegations without factual foundation, was time-barred on its face, involved non-justiciable national/foreign-state matters, and amounted to frivolous, vexatious and abusive litigation not curable by amendment.
Source excerpt
The Court of First Instance dismissed a striking-out appeal, holding that the plaintiff had an arguable limitation case based on alleged part payments after 2013.
The Court of First Instance declared that Carnival Limited has good title to the Lots, holding that the 1921 division of property posed no real title risk.
The court held that the defendant failed to prove adverse possession of the occupied land and that the 2 May 2014 tenancy agreement was valid and binding.
The cause of action arose on 18 November 2019 so the 3-year limitation under Limitation Ordinance s27 expired on 17 November 2022; the plaintiff provided no credible reasons under s30 to extend time and the delay caused significant prejudice to the defendant; therefore the claim disclosed no reasonable cause of action and was properly struck out under Order 18 r19; appeal dismissed and costs awarded to defendant.
Source excerpt
Explore more
