Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Appellate review of discretionary orders

Legal area

Court

14 Jul 2022

HKSAR v. RAHMAN MD SALIM AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 2441
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA82/2022

The magistrate lawfully found the circumstances were highly suspicious and, given the appellants had been arrested and cautioned, properly had regard to their failure to proffer an explanation when deciding costs; there was no error of law or fact in the discretionary refusal of costs and the appellate court will not disturb that discretion, so the appeal is dismissed.
29 Sept 2017

NWP v. JOCK

Citation

NWP v. JOCK
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1496/2017

The application for leave to appeal was dismissed because the Family Court judge properly applied the legal principles in assessing maintenance pending suit, the Husband failed to make full and frank disclosure justifying robust assumptions about his ability to pay, and there was no reasonable prospect that an appeal would succeed such as to justify granting leave.
9 Oct 2008

L v. K AND ANOTHER

Citation

L v. K AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV103/2008

The appeal is dismissed because the Court of Appeal found no error in principle in the judge below's discretionary directions for staged contact via International Social Services and a review hearing; in custody matters the appellate court will not disturb such arrangements absent error and the judge's course was sensible given the children's welfare.
20 Jul 2001

SANO SCREEN MANUFACTURERS LTD. v. J & R BOSSINI TRADING LTD.

Citation

SANO SCREEN MANUFACTURERS LTD. v. J & R BOSSINI TRADING LTD.
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV725/2001

The appeal is dismissed because Order 48 applies to former directors and the judge did not misapply his discretion in ordering Mr Lam to be orally examined and to produce documents: Mr Lam's intimate connection with the group and potential knowledge of movement of the judgment debtor's assets justified the order, and the availability of other witnesses was not an overriding factor to deny the examination.
2 May 1996

MEI YU LAU v. INTERTEX TRADING CO. LTD. and Others

Citation

MEI YU LAU v. INTERTEX TRADING CO. LTD. and Others
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV261/1995

The Court dismissed the appeal, holding the trial judge properly exercised his discretion in requiring satisfactory accounting for prior funds before permitting a larger release and appropriately increasing the permitted expenditure only to $250,000; further applications for additional sums should be made to the trial judge and appellate intervention was unwarranted absent plain error.
26 Apr 1996

RODERICK WARREN ROOKE v. KERRYE LOUISE ROOKE

Citation

RODERICK WARREN ROOKE v. KERRYE LOUISE ROOKE
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV246/1995

Given the wife's serious medical needs and the husband's overall access to capital despite fluctuating income, the judge did not err in exercising his s11 discretion to increase maintenance to HK$18,000 per month, award arrears and order a HK$100,000 buffer; the Court of Appeal will not disturb that discretionary decision absent plain error or misunderstanding of law or evidence.
5 Jul 1991

SHUM YUEN NIM v. UNITED FAIR AGENCIES LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

SHUM YUEN NIM v. UNITED FAIR AGENCIES LTD AND OTHERS
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV45/1990

The Court dismissed the appeal: the trial judge did not err in principle or misexercise his discretion. Although there was inordinate and largely unexplained delay by the plaintiff, the 2nd Defendant failed to prove that the post-writ delay caused more than minimal additional prejudice beyond that inherent in the pre-writ delay; service on 17 October 1985 was effective under the Companies Ordinance and the peremptory order (with costs consequences) was a proper exercise of judicial discretion.
18 Mar 1986

CONNIE WAI HAN TANG YUNG v. STEPHEN WILLIAM KWING PUI YUNG

Citation

CONNIE WAI HAN TANG YUNG v. STEPHEN WILLIAM KWING PUI YUNG
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV201/1985

The District Judge's award of HK$35,000 per month was outside the permissible bracket on the evidence before him because he failed to provide a proper breakdown and relied on irrelevant material; the Court of Appeal substituted a justified figure of HK$22,000 per month based on reasonable monthly allocations for rent, pocket money, living expenses and travel/presents.