Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Cross-appeal

Legal area

Court

9 Nov 2020

JIANG, JIANXIN v. YIU, MING FUNG

Citation

[2020] HKCA 916
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV156/2019

The Court dismissed the defendant's appeal and allowed the plaintiff's cross-appeal, entering summary judgment for the plaintiff for the principal sum of RMB 70,000,000 and for interest, because the defendant's defence of prior repayment was inherently incredible, contradicted by contemporaneous signed documents (Loan Confirmation Note and Investment Confirmation Note) and unsupported by explanation or evidence, and therefore did not raise a triable issue to resist summary judgment.
2 Sept 2019

BRIGHT GOLD LTD v. MEGA WELL DEVELOPMENT LTD

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 2175
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2194/2011

Although Bright Gold's cross-appeal may be arguable, it failed to show that a stay was necessary to prevent the appeal being rendered nugatory; Mega Well acted in good faith under the consent order, would suffer real prejudice from delay, and reversal of the rescission (if the appeal succeeds) is practicable, so the balance of convenience requires refusal of the stay.
15 Aug 2018

Messrs BRUNO ARBOIT AND IAN ROBINSON, The Joint and Several Liquidators of CHUNG YING REMINBI EXCHANGE CO LTD v. HU YAN AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2018] HKCA 507
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV262/2017

The Court held that leave under section 14AA was required for the Plaintiffs' cross-appeal, the delay was inexcusable and the Plaintiffs failed to demonstrate a real prospect of success; a master of the Court of First Instance could not validly alter the identity of parties in an ongoing Court of Appeal matter, therefore the 26 July 2018 amendment had no effect for this appeal; accordingly leave out of time was refused, the summons dismissed and the cross-appeal struck out.
14 Apr 2015

TANG YING LOI v. TANG YING IP alias TANG YING YIP AND OTHERS

Citation

TANG YING LOI v. TANG YING IP alias TANG YING YIP AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2487/2009

No good reason for a stay was shown: the appeal was only reasonably arguable not strong; there was no risk the appeal would be rendered nugatory by proceeding with the ordered inquiry; inquiry could be scheduled after the appeal to minimize wasted costs; and further delay would prejudice the elderly plaintiff, so the summons for a stay was dismissed with costs to the plaintiff.
19 Jan 2015

HYSAN DEVELOPMENT CO LTD AND OTHERS v. TOWN PLANNING BOARD

Citation

HYSAN DEVELOPMENT CO LTD AND OTHERS v. TOWN PLANNING BOARD
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV232/2012

The Court held the cross‑appeal was academic in light of the Court's determination of the appeal and therefore made no order on the cross‑appeal except that there would be no order as to costs; the Court ordered the Town Planning Board to pay Hysan 2/3 of the costs of the appeal and 3/4 of the costs below, with certificate for two counsel, such costs to be taxed if not agreed, and reduced Hysan's recoverable costs to reflect time spent on constitutionality and ultra vires arguments.
19 Jan 2015

LEIGHTON PROPERTY CO LTD AND ANOTHER v. TOWN PLANNING BOARD

Citation

LEIGHTON PROPERTY CO LTD AND ANOTHER v. TOWN PLANNING BOARD
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV233/2012

The Court held that the cross-appeal was academic in light of its conclusions on the main appeal and therefore it was unnecessary to decide it; accordingly the Court made no order on the cross-appeal except that there be no order as to costs, and exercised its discretion on costs by ordering that the Town Planning Board pay Hysan two-thirds of the costs of the appeal and three-quarters of the costs below (with certificate for two counsel), taxed if not agreed, reflecting that some time was correctly spent on constitutionality and ultra vires issues which reduced Hysan's recoverable costs.
24 Jun 2014

HUEN WAI KEI AND ANOTHER v. CHOY KWONG WA CHRISTOPHER AND ANOTHER

Citation

HUEN WAI KEI AND ANOTHER v. CHOY KWONG WA CHRISTOPHER AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV140/2013

The summons for leave to file the respondents notice was dismissed because the plaintiffs were wholly successful at trial and the proposed cross-appeal (to vary a specific performance order made in their favour) was inappropriate and premature; the plaintiffs should pursue relief arising from post-judgment events by the Notice of Motion or, if necessary, by an appeal after determination, with case management to address concurrent appeals.
19 May 2014

KAM LEUNG SUI KWAN, PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF KAM KWAN SING ,THE DECEASED v. KAM KWAN LAI AND OTHERS

Citation

KAM LEUNG SUI KWAN, PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF KAM KWAN SING ,THE DECEASED v. KAM KWAN LAI AND OTHERS
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV266/2012

The respondents' supplemental notice was, in substance, a cross-appeal; respondents were overall the successful party for the purposes of costs, but the court exercised its discretion to depart from the general rule and deprived the respondents of 15% of their total costs of the appeal, ordering the petitioner to pay 85% of the respondents' costs inclusive of the supplemental notice, with a certificate for two counsel and one set of costs to be taxed if not agreed.
24 Jun 2013

NG YIN NEI v. LEE CHICK CHOI

Citation

NG YIN NEI v. LEE CHICK CHOI
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1131/2013

The summons seeking leave to appeal was dismissed because it was unnecessary: leave to appeal had already been granted and the costs issue could properly be raised and determined in the pending appeal; accordingly the re-application was without merit and refused, and an order was made under O.59 r.2A(8) preventing an oral reconsideration.
28 Mar 2012

GHULAM RBANI v. SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE for and on behalf of THE DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION

Citation

GHULAM RBANI v. SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE for and on behalf of THE DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP308/2012

The court granted leave to file and serve the 2nd Supplemental Respondent's Notice because the proposed contention has a real prospect of success and the issue may have wider relevance warranting an authoritative Hong Kong decision; consequentially the extension of time was justified and costs of the application were ordered on an nisi basis.