Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Discontinuance

Legal area

Court

7 May 2026

SECURITIES AND FUTURES COMMISSION v. ZHU YU GUO AND OTHERS

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2562
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1439/2019

On the agreed facts the court was satisfied R3’s conduct while Financial Controller amounted to misfeasance and misconduct and resulted in members not being given material information and unfair prejudice within s214(1)(b),(c) and (d). A 2-year disqualification was appropriate in the minimum bracket given the role, failures, mitigation and absence of dishonesty. The court allowed a limited carve-out for three private companies on exceptional factual grounds and granted the SFC leave to discontinue proceedings against the 1st,2nd,4th and 5th respondents.
25 Feb 2026

TUNG LAI LAM v. 東網有限公司 AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2026] HKDC 354
Court

District Court
Case number

DCEO8/2025

The claimant's email was accepted as a valid notice of discontinuance; the respondents bore the burden to prove maliciousness, frivolousness or special circumstances under s 73C(3) and failed to discharge that burden on the evidence and timing; the court therefore ordered that each party bear its own costs under s 73C(3).
5 Dec 2025

W.M. CONTRACTOR LTD formerly known as W.M. FOUNDATION COMPANY LTD v. CHAN SIU HUNG

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 6114
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCT45/2022

No good reason was shown to depart from the starting point that the discontinuing party bears costs. No binding settlement with the Defendant had been proved; the second cause overlapped and was settled in HCCT17; the remaining confidential information claim was demurrable because the impugned documents post-dated the Defendant's employment and thus he owed no duty qua employee. Accordingly the action was discontinued with an order that the Plaintiff pay the Defendant's costs to be assessed on a gross sum basis.
3 Nov 2025

AHMED ISRAR v. RICHPAC LOGISTICS LTD

Citation

[2025] HKDC 1822
Court

District Court
Case number

DCEC1583/2024

The judge exercised her discretion to depart from the ordinary rule that the withdrawing party pays costs because the 2nd Respondent's dilatory, non‑responsive and aggressive litigation conduct (including issuing an unnecessary summons after the applicant had already agreed to discontinue) caused unnecessary cost and litigation; accordingly the court ordered no order as to costs between the applicant and the 2nd respondent and no order as to costs of the summons (nisi), and no order as to costs between R2 and R1.
21 Oct 2025

FAROOQ UMAR v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 4980
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1255/2025

The applicant filed a Notice of Discontinuance under Order 21 r.2 and the court was satisfied he had no intention to prosecute the leave application; accordingly the court granted leave to withdraw and ordered the leave application discontinued.
28 Aug 2025

LIMBU BISHNU MAYA v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 3795
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL294/2017

The applicant's filing of a Notice of Discontinuance under Order 21, Rule 2 demonstrated no intention to prosecute the leave application; the court therefore discontinued the leave application.
22 Aug 2025

IKRAM CAHUDHRY MUHAMMAD alias IKRAM MUHAMMAD v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 3687
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1141/2020

Because the applicant affirmed receipt of a Hong Kong identity card and applied to discontinue the leave application, there was nothing outstanding in the action and the leave application was dismissed, applying the authority in Manik MD Mahamudun Nabi [2022] HKCA 471.
21 Aug 2025

BAPARY YEBRAHIM v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 3559
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL221/2018

The leave application was discontinued because the Applicant filed a Notice of Discontinuance under Order 21, Rule 2 and the Court was satisfied that the Applicant had no intention to prosecute the leave application, therefore the application is dismissed as discontinued.
21 Aug 2025

MD SHAJAHAM ALI v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 3558
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL237/2018

The applicant filed a Notice of Discontinuance under Order 21, rule 2 and the Court, being satisfied that the applicant had no intention to prosecute the leave application, ordered that the leave application be discontinued.
30 May 2025

SHIH HUA INVESTMENT CO., LTD v. ZHANG AIDONG AND OTHERS

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 2335
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCW198/2016

The Amended Petition had become academic as a result of the company's uncontested winding up and the likely outcome could not be determined without disproportionate investigation; justice required departing from the general rule and making no order as to costs in respect of the A Petition, the Discontinuance Summons and the Striking Out Summons, but on a nisi basis the court ordered that one third of the costs of the costs-only hearing be paid by the 1st and 2nd Respondents to the Petitioner, taxed if not agreed, with certificate for counsel.