Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Ex parte leave

Legal area

Court

27 Oct 2021

RE CHU KONG

Citation

[2021] HKCA 1580
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV173/2017

Appeal allowed: ex parte leave to bring contempt proceedings was wrongly set aside because (1) admitted fabrication of emails established a prima facie case and the doctored emails were material to the core dispute, (2) the alleged non-disclosures were either disclosed or immaterial and did not justify discharge of leave, and (3) Secretary for Justice consent or joinder is not required for civil procedural contempt proceedings arising in civil litigation; leave restored and substantive committal proceedings reinstated.
27 Oct 2021

MR CHU KONG v. SUN MIN AND OTHERS

Citation

[2021] HKCA 1580
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV174/2017

The Court allowed the appeal, holding that (1) Secretary for Justice consent or joinder is not required for criminal contempts occurring in civil proceedings because the proceedings are procedurally civil and the RHC Order 52 leave procedure sufficiently vets cases; (2) a prima facie case of contempt was established because documents were admitted to be fabricated and were likely material to the central issues; (3) the Judge below misassessed the significance of the doctored emails and wrongly found material non-disclosure sufficient to set aside ex parte leave; and (4) contempt proceedings w…
4 Sept 2020

LIAO CHEN TOH v. LOYAL INTERNATIONAL ENTERPRISES CO LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 2272
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2302/2014

The court held that where an alleged contemnor has already submitted to the court's jurisdiction in the original proceedings and the alleged contempt is incidental to orders made in those proceedings, leave under Order 11 to serve out contempt proceedings is not required; the ex parte application here contained sufficient evidence to justify substituted service and dispensation of personal service because there was prima facie evidence of evasion and no material non-disclosure; the Contempt Statement was sufficiently particularized for the leave stage; and the time for issuing the notice of h…
6 Nov 2019

WZR v. LWC

Citation

[2019] HKFC 281
Court

Family Court
Case number

FCMP208/2018

The court found the applicant's ex-parte affidavit contained material misrepresentations and omissions regarding whether the PRC courts had dealt with the Hong Kong properties; those misrepresentations and non-disclosures had materially misled the court in granting ex‑parte leave, therefore the ex‑parte leave was set aside and the originating summons dismissed, with costs to the respondent.
5 May 2017

PAN CHUNG PAT WO TONG (HONG KONG) LTD V. LAW YAN WAI t/a SINGAPORE MEDICINE CO

Citation

PAN CHUNG PAT WO TONG (HONG KONG) LTD V. LAW YAN WAI t/a SINGAPORE MEDICINE CO
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1719/2010

Material nondisclosure of Law 2, Law 3, Law 4 and relevant correspondence together with a defective, overbroad Statement of Contempt rendered the ex parte Leave Order unsustainable; the nondisclosure was not innocent and, taken with the inadequate particulars in the Statement of Contempt, justified setting aside the Leave Order and refusing a regrant.
14 Feb 2017

AM AND OTHERS v. THE DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION AND ANOTHER

Citation

AM AND OTHERS v. THE DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL10/2015

The ex parte leave was set aside because the Applicants failed to demonstrate good reason to extend time after an inordinate delay; the intended judicial review was otiose given the Applicants' non-refoulement claims would be assessed under the USM, and the Applicants' failure to disclose the ongoing USM proceedings was a material non-disclosure reinforcing the decision to set aside the ex parte leave.
29 Dec 2016

NEWOCEAN PETROLEUM CO LTD v. O.W. BUNKER CHINA LTD (in provisional liquidation) AND ANOTHER

Citation

NEWOCEAN PETROLEUM CO LTD v. O.W. BUNKER CHINA LTD (in provisional liquidation) AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV156/2016

Appeal allowed in part: the judge's costs order awarding the plaintiff 60% of the costs of the setting aside application was set aside and substituted so that the 2nd defendant pays the plaintiff 30% of those costs (reflecting a 40% reduction previously ordered plus a further 30% deduction for abandonment of the contract claim), the judge's 40% reduction for misrepresentation remains, the plaintiff must pay the costs of the appeal, and half of the costs of the leave applications (which were made costs in the cause) are awarded to the 2nd defendant.
21 Jul 2015

TIONG KING SING v. SAM BOON PENG YEE AND ANOTHER

Citation

TIONG KING SING v. SAM BOON PENG YEE AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1129/2015

Leave to appeal was granted because although the court agreed there was sufficient prima facie evidence to justify the original ex parte leave, it was reasonably arguable that the solicitors should have shown the plaintiff's letters to the judge and that issue could justify setting aside leave; given the procedural and costs issues the court exercised its discretion to grant leave to appeal and ordered costs in the cause.
6 May 2015

TIONG KING SING v. SAM BOON PENG YEE AND ANOTHER

Citation

TIONG KING SING v. SAM BOON PENG YEE AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1517/2011

The ex parte leave stage for committal is a filtering exercise under Order 52; Order 41 r5(2) and rules on affidavit admissibility do not apply in the same way at that stage to affirmations verifying the statement; the contested material was not material to the filtering test and the plaintiff's grounds had no reasonable prospect of success, therefore leave to appeal was refused.
21 Jan 2015

SAM BOON PENG YEE AND ANOTHER v. TIONG KING SING

Citation

SAM BOON PENG YEE AND ANOTHER v. TIONG KING SING
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1404/2014

Ex parte leave to issue committal proceedings was properly granted because at the leave (filtering) stage the court requires a prima facie case and is not deciding admissibility or conducting a mini‑trial; Cheng's solicitor affirmation was justified given the defendant's house arrest and interviews of witnesses and was sufficient for the ex parte stage; the two solicitors' letters did not contain material information that would have defeated the prima facie case or rendered the application oppressive, so no material non‑disclosure arose and the strike out/set‑aside application failed.