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 set aside a default judgment after finding service by letterbox was irregular because the defendant was not within the jurisdiction when served.
The High Court struck out Kumar Vinod’s application for extension of time to seek judicial review, after he admitted error. No order as to costs.
The Court of First Instance dismissed the Defendant’s leave applications, holding the review was out of time under the Labour Tribunal Ordinance and the intended appeal had no merit.
Costs decision on a Mareva injunction application: the plaintiffs were treated as the effective winners of the continuation summons, with costs in the cause ordered.
The court refused to reduce maintenance before retirement, but prospectively lowered it to HK$10,000 a month once the payer retires or stops work.
The Court of Appeal refused leave to appeal against refusal to release a matrimonial undertaking, holding there was no reasonable prospect of success.
The Court of First Instance set aside a consent order referring a solicitor’s bill to taxation, holding the underlying oral fee agreement was unenforceable under section 56 of the Legal Practitioners Ordinance.
The Court of First Instance summarily assessed costs at HK$85,000 after a consent order, finding the Defendants’ claimed costs excessive and reducing them on a broad-brush basis.
The application for leave was dismissed because the consent order was reached voluntarily following a patient and orderly hearing; there was no objective evidence of bias, coercion or tampering; and the applicant failed to establish a question of law or jurisdictional excess under s28(1), therefore no real prospect of success on appeal.
Source excerpt
The application for leave to appeal was refused because the proposed appeal raised no question of law of general or public importance and concerned only case‑specific factual complaints; no other exceptional reasons existed to justify referral to the Court of Final Appeal, so leave was denied and costs ordered against the applicant.
Source excerpt
Explore more
