Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Abuse of process / res judicata

Legal area

Court

24 Feb 2025

陳思維對根記環保工程有限公司

Citation

[2025] HKDC 293
Court

District Court
Case number

DCEO5/2023

Applicant failed to demonstrate a realistic prospect of success on appeal because the alleged factual errors were not plain or material, many claims were barred by prior settlements or constituted an abuse of process, the fresh insurer letter was not properly presented or explanatory and would not alter conclusions, and the circumstances justified refusal to vary the costs order under the applicable statutory regime; accordingly leave to appeal was dismissed and the costs order was confirmed.
12 Aug 2021

KWOK CHEUK KIN v. THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 2357
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1058/2021

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the application was filed well outside the three‑month promptness period with no good reason to extend time; the CE's funding request was not shown to be a reviewable decision; the $550 million preliminary request was immaterial to overall budget figures and did not demonstrate a breach of Article 107; the issue had been recently litigated and dismissed; and the applicant's standing and competence were undermined by bankruptcy and a history of serial unmeritorious applications.
13 Mar 2019

SUBRAMANIAN SUDHAGAR v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD AND ANOTHER [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 648
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1854/2018

Because the applicant had previously sought leave in relation to the same non-refoulement claim and that prior application had been refused, it was not legally open to bring a second application on the same subject-matter and leave was refused.
29 Oct 2018

BEPARY SHAHEALOM v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD

Citation

[2018] HKCA 763
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV245/2018

The appeal was an abuse of process because it re-litigated a matter already refused leave; the judge did not err in law or fail to give adequate reasons and there was no basis to disturb the Board's adverse factual findings regarding lack of credible evidence and absence of state acquiescence, therefore the appeal is struck out and dismissed.
15 May 2013

LEE SAI NAM v. LI SHU CHUNG AND ANOTHER

Citation

LEE SAI NAM v. LI SHU CHUNG AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1711/2009

The court granted leave to amend to include the Ken Investment and Ken Profit Pleas because the proposed amendments constitute particulars of material facts necessary to adjudicate liability (not mere evidence of quantum), did not amount to an abuse of process in light of the nature of prior winding up proceedings, and were relevant to the liability issues to be tried; accordingly consequential amendments were permitted with specified filing timelines and costs allocations.
18 Nov 2010

RE NG KIN WO JOHNNY

Citation

RE NG KIN WO JOHNNY
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL114/2010

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the Applicant was out of time to challenge the Director's November 2009 decision, had an available statutory appeal route to the MSAB which he either failed to use or used and lost, the MSAB had considered and decided the substantive issues including the alleged unfair treatment and policy weight, new factual grounds not raised before MSAB could not properly be ventilated in judicial review, and the LAB jurisdiction point is academic given termination of tenancies; accordingly no arguable ground for judicial review existed.
31 Oct 1990

COMMISSIONER OF INIAND REVENUE v. ASPIRATION LAND INVESTMENT LTD.

Citation

COMMISSIONER OF INIAND REVENUE v. ASPIRATION LAND INVESTMENT LTD.
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCIA10/1989

The summons to amend the case stated was dismissed as an abuse of process and on discretionary grounds: the Commissioner sought to reopen and relitigate the Board's factual findings by annexing transcripts and adducing 'the whole of the evidence' without identifying specific findings alleged to be unsupported; the Board's fact‑finding role is final unless particular findings are shown to have no evidential basis (Edwards v. Bairstow test), and the Board was entitled to refuse to frame the broad questions sought.

Hong Kong Case Law

陳思維 對 根記環保工程有限公司

KWOK CHEUK KIN v. THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

SUBRAMANIAN SUDHAGAR v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD AND ANOTHER [Decision on Leave Application]

BEPARY SHAHEALOM v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD

LEE SAI NAM v. LI SHU CHUNG AND ANOTHER

RE NG KIN WO JOHNNY

COMMISSIONER OF INIAND REVENUE v. ASPIRATION LAND INVESTMENT LTD.

陳思維對根記環保工程有限公司