Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Hong Kong Case Law

Consent summons

  • 14 Apr 2026

    YIU YAN CHE by YIU WAI YU his next friend v. YIU CHO YUEN

    Citation
    [2026] HKCFI 2515
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCA1363/2024

    The Master erred in disallowing paragraph 3; on balancing case-management imperatives against probative value the contemporaneous assessments by Dr Hung and Dr Yu are sufficiently direct and probative to warrant admission as expert evidence with leave of the court, and allowing them will assist an ex post facto expert and the trial judge; accordingly the appeal is allowed and paragraph 3 reinstated with costs in the cause.

  • 23 Dec 2025

    CHAN YAU YAM v. DR HO SAI CHEUNG

    Citation
    [2025] HKDC 2130
    Court
    District Court
    Case number
    DCPI2438/2024

    On objective interpretation, JSM’s 6 August 2025 letter and the Notice of Acceptance plainly and unconditionally accepted the Re-Amended Sanctioned Offer under Order 22 r16(1); the accompanying draft consent summons merely proposed additional terms for the Plaintiff’s consideration and did not render the acceptance conditional or equivocal; the Master had jurisdiction under Practice Direction 18.1 para 116 to determine the procedural dispute at the CLR hearing; the Plaintiff’s fresh affirmations were excluded because they were further evidence and failed Ladd v Marshall (not likely to affect…

  • 8 Jan 2025

    CHAN YUET CHUN v. HOSPITAL AUTHORITY

    Citation
    [2025] HKDC 42
    Court
    District Court
    Case number
    DCPI1749/2020

    By consent the court varied the costs order nisi to award costs of the Defendant’s Summons filed 24 May 2024, including all costs reserved, to the Defendant to be taxed if not agreed; ordered the Plaintiff to pay HK$700 for the Consent Summons; ordered that costs of the Defendant’s Summons be borne by the Plaintiff’s solicitors personally as a wasted costs order; and disallowed legal aid taxation in respect of specified items.

  • 19 Dec 2024

    FONG PING KIT v. TSANG HIN WAI, THE ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF LEE CHIU TAI, DECEASED AND ANOTHER

    Citation
    [2024] HKCFI 3585
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCA2200/2017

    The judge found on balance that the core affirmations supporting the 2007 Order were dishonest: documentary and contemporaneous evidence (Rent Book, DLO letters, AFD licences, business records) established plaintiff's long open occupation and undermined the defendants' claim of continuous possession by Madam Lee and family; the Purported Lease was fabricated by D1 and not credible; service affirmations were not proven false but that did not excuse the dishonest primary case. Because the 2007 Order was obtained by fraud and the Consent Summons/payment flowed from representations based on that…

  • 2 Oct 2024

    SO LAI HA YVONNE v. HO TIM TAI AND ANOTHER

    Citation
    [2024] HKDC 1643
    Court
    District Court
    Case number
    DCCJ5169/2019

    The consent summons was dismissed because declaratory relief cannot be granted solely by consent without necessity to do justice, paragraphs 2–4 were properly deleted from the re-re-amended writ (precluding the requested paper-title declarations), and the substantive issues in paragraph 1 overlap with matters reserved for trial against the 1st defendant so the consent summons is inappropriate and would prejudice the trial.

  • 15 Jul 2024

    HIGH ROUTE LTD v. WONG CHUNG KAI

    Citation
    [2024] HKCFI 1794
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCA320/2019

    The summons to vary the costs order nisi was dismissed because the parties had jointly agreed by consent summons (as ordered by Master Dick Ho) that expert evidence be adduced and that costs be in the cause, the Plaintiff had acquiesced and thereafter relied on and substituted expert evidence causing delay, and absent successful variation or appeal the court will not reopen the agreed costs allocation; accordingly costs of expert evidence follow the event and are payable by the losing party.

  • 10 May 2024

    HMC v. CWY

    Citation
    [2024] HKFC 87
    Court
    Family Court
    Case number
    FCMC3129/2021

    The Court held it has no power to vary the terms of a Consent Summons itself but may vary a Consent Order under s.11 MPPO; exercising that power the Court considered all circumstances (including pre-Order events) de novo, found Husband's inconsistent and obstructive conduct together with market decline frustrated the purpose of the Consent Order, and therefore varied the Consent Order to mandate updated valuations, expedited marketing, limited negotiation leeway (5% below updated market value), procedural steps for repeated valuations and sale, and an order for Husband to vacate within six mo…

  • 27 Mar 2023

    CHEUNG KA MAN v. WONG YU HUEN

    Citation
    [2023] HKDC 418
    Court
    District Court
    Case number
    DCPI214/2021

    The court granted the Consent Summons and made orders in terms agreed by the parties: the Plaintiff's Summons was dismissed, the hearing was vacated and the Plaintiff was ordered to pay the agreed costs of HK$145,000 within 14 days, the court exercising its power to make consent orders and give effect to the parties' agreement.

  • 31 Jan 2023

    GREEN SUMMIT HOLDING PTE. LTD. v. XUDI TRADING CO., LTD AND OTHERS

    Citation
    [2023] HKCFI 229
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCA1264/2021

    The Plaintiff was awarded costs because it obtained the relief originally sought by the Discovery Summons, the summons was not premature given the clear deadline and the defendants' failure to seek more time as foreshadowed, and the court reduced claimed costs to reflect unnecessary duplication and use of two fee earners, assessing $45,000 for the Discovery Summons and $1,040 for the Consent Summons, payable forthwith by the 6th to 13th Defendants.

  • 4 Jan 2023

    WORLD ASIA CONSULTANTS LTD v. GOLD PLAZA LTD

    Citation
    [2023] HKDC 35
    Court
    District Court
    Case number
    DCCJ3590/2018

    Adjournment granted conditionally: trial adjourned to a date to be fixed on the condition that the plaintiff makes an appointment with the Court Registry to re‑fix trial dates within 42 days; failure to comply will result in the action being dismissed without further order with costs to the defendant; costs of today’s hearing to be paid by the plaintiff, and the plaintiff’s solicitors must notify the plaintiff and file the order within specified timeframes.