Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Ex-parte applications

Legal area

Court

26 Jul 2024

SUCCESS LANE DEVELOPMENT LIMITED V. FERGURSON HONG KONG LIMITED trading as NEW WORLD MILLENNIUM HONG KONG HOTEL

Citation

[2024] HKDC 1221
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ2191/2023

Leave to appeal was refused because the intended appeal had no reasonable prospect of success and there was no interest of justice to hear it; the indemnity costs order and order for summary assessment and immediate payment were justified by the plaintiff's deliberate material non-disclosure and abuse of the ex-parte procedure, the procedural default in failing to seek timely variation, and the court's familiarity with the interlocutory conduct which permitted summary assessment.
30 Apr 2024

X v. MARIANI, STEFANO

Citation

[2024] HKDC 636
Court

District Court
Case number

DCEO11/2023

The Anonymity Order was set aside because the claimant failed the high duty of full, frank and accurate disclosure in the ex‑parte application; significant adverse matters (selective omission of WhatsApp content, relevant passages of the Law Firm meeting note, and the claimant's authorship of anonymous emails and related threatened defamation proceedings) were objectively material to the court's weighing exercise and would have defeated or altered the need for an ex‑parte AO; medical reports grounded in untested subjective history were given little weight at this interlocutory stage; open jus…
30 Apr 2024

SG v. GDV

Citation

[2024] HKFC 93
Court

Family Court
Case number

FCMC10217/2020

The ex-parte applications were dismissed because the father failed to establish the required extreme urgency or secrecy to justify ex-parte mandatory relocation orders, the mother (who shares interim care) was entitled to be notified and heard, and the father's repeated prior dismissals rendered the ex-parte process an abuse of court process.
15 Jun 2021

THE LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL COMMISSION v. SIXTUS LEUNG CHUNG HANG

Citation

[2021] HKDC 711
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ4497/2017

Leave to appeal dismissed because the Intended Party adduced no fresh grounds and the appeal had no reasonable prospect of success and no interest of justice; the order nisi for indemnity costs was made absolute because the Intended Party's repeated ex-parte applications, delays and conduct were vexatious and constituted an affront to the court, meeting the threshold for indemnity costs.
18 Dec 2019

THE LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL COMMISSION v. SIXTUS LEUNG CHUNG HANG

Citation

[2019] HKDC 1691
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ4497/2017

The Intended Party failed to demonstrate good and strong reasons to re-open the dismissed DC appeal, her ex-parte appeals were an abuse of process, she caused inordinate delay and breached appeal procedural rules, and she produced no evidence establishing locus or relevance; therefore the ex-parte summonses are dismissed and the plaintiff's cross summons is granted with an order nisi for indemnity costs.
14 Feb 2006

WU MAN SHAN v. THE REGISTRAR OF PROBATE

Citation

WU MAN SHAN v. THE REGISTRAR OF PROBATE
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP2683/2005

Rule 55 of the English Non-Contentious Probate Rules applies in Hong Kong by virtue of s72(2) PAO; accordingly rectification under s23A WO may be effected by the Registrar within a grant application if one exists, but where no grant application has been filed the proper route is ex-parte MP proceedings before a Master (or Judge as appropriate); a clerical, trivial error which causes no prejudice can be rectified ex-parte and the Registrar need not be joined as respondent.

Hong Kong Case Law

SUCCESS LANE DEVELOPMENT LIMITED V. FERGURSON HONG KONG LIMITED trading as NEW WORLD MILLENNIUM HONG KONG HOTEL

X v. MARIANI, STEFANO

SG v. GDV

THE LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL COMMISSION v. SIXTUS LEUNG CHUNG HANG

THE LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL COMMISSION v. SIXTUS LEUNG CHUNG HANG

WU MAN SHAN v. THE REGISTRAR OF PROBATE