Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Final judgment

Legal area

Court

21 Jul 2015

ZARIR KHALID v. GURUNG DURGA BAHADUR AND ANOTHER

Citation

ZARIR KHALID v. GURUNG DURGA BAHADUR AND ANOTHER
Court

District Court
Case number

DCPI2562/2011

The 2nd defendant failed to demonstrate any defence with a real prospect of success and provided an unsatisfactory, implausible explanation for the defaults; coupled with prolonged delay, deliberate inaction until enforcement/winding-up threatened, and resultant prejudice to the plaintiff and the public policy of finality, the court exercised its discretion to refuse to set aside the interlocutory and final default judgments and dismissed the 2nd defendant's applications with costs.
18 Feb 2011

THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF WISE MANSION v. MAK SHIU LING

Citation

THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF WISE MANSION v. MAK SHIU LING
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ1567/2010

Amendment of pleadings was refused because a final judgment had been entered and perfected; O.20 r.8 cannot be used post-judgment to introduce new substantive relief except to correct clerical errors under O.20 r.11; permitting the amendment would improperly reopen the judgment and give the applicant a second opportunity to plead relief it could and should have sought earlier; applicant must commence fresh proceedings if it wishes to pursue the relief.
27 Mar 2009

SUPERIOR CORPORATION LTD v. MTR CORPORATION LTD

Citation

SUPERIOR CORPORATION LTD v. MTR CORPORATION LTD
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FAMV68/2008

The applications for leave to appeal are dismissed because the Court of Appeal acted within its discretion to dismiss the expedited appeals in the factual circumstances where applicants failed to have representation or address the court, and the proposed appeals did not raise questions of great general or public importance nor sufficient merit to warrant leave.
27 Mar 2009

SOURCE INC. LTD v. MTR CORPORATION LTD

Citation

SOURCE INC. LTD v. MTR CORPORATION LTD
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FAMV77/2008

The applications for leave to appeal were dismissed because the Court of Appeal acted within its discretion in dismissing the expedited appeals where there was no one to address the court, the applicants' complaints were fact-specific and did not raise points of general public importance, and the appeals lacked merit.
27 Mar 2009

UNION STAR INC. LTD v. MTR CORPORATION LTD

Citation

UNION STAR INC. LTD v. MTR CORPORATION LTD
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FAMV73/2008

The applications for leave to appeal were dismissed because the complaint was fact specific, the Court of Appeal acted within its discretion to dismiss the expedited appeals when applicants failed to present submissions, and no point of law of general or public importance was established to justify leave.
27 Mar 2009

NEW CONCEPT INC. LTD v. MTR CORPORATION LTD

Citation

NEW CONCEPT INC. LTD v. MTR CORPORATION LTD
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FAMV72/2008

Leave to appeal was refused because the Court of Appeal's dismissal was a lawful exercise of its discretion where the applicants had no one to address the expedited hearing, the complaint was fact‑specific and did not raise questions of law of general or public importance, and the Court of Appeal had correctly assessed the appeals as lacking merit.
19 Jul 2007

NGO TAI HONG v. JOHN DAVID ANDREW IP AND ANOTHER

Citation

NGO TAI HONG v. JOHN DAVID ANDREW IP AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV12/2006

Leave to appeal was refused because the claim was not for liquidated damages and therefore did not fall within s22(1)(a), and because the alleged legal question advanced under s22(1)(b) was not of great general or public importance but fact‑specific and without a concise question of law; causation issues were open to the plaintiff at retrial and did not justify leave.
31 Mar 2004

WANG CHI KIEN v. SHEI TAI SHENG ENTERPRISES (HOLDINGS) LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

WANG CHI KIEN v. SHEI TAI SHENG ENTERPRISES (HOLDINGS) LTD AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1910/2003

Leave to appeal was refused because the judgment sought to be challenged was not a final judgment, the applicant did not have an automatic right of appeal under s22(1)(a) since the statutory monetary threshold was not met, and the applicant failed to identify any issue of great general or public importance under s22(1)(b); consequently extension of time and leave were refused and costs were ordered against the applicant.
18 Jun 1998

HEBEI PEAK HARVEST BATTERY CO. LTD. v. POLYTEK ENGINEERING CO. LTD.

Citation

HEBEI PEAK HARVEST BATTERY CO. LTD. v. POLYTEK ENGINEERING CO. LTD.
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV224/1997

The Court refused leave because the Court of Appeal's order to remit was not a final judgment within s.22(1)(a) and the questions identified did not meet the threshold of great general or public importance required for discretionary leave under s.22(1)(b); consequently leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal was dismissed and the matter remitted to the Court of First Instance for rehearing.
16 Aug 1995

EDWARD WONG CREDIT LIMITED v. PEARLY STRATEGY LIMITED trading as LEADERTRONICS COMPANY

Citation

EDWARD WONG CREDIT LIMITED v. PEARLY STRATEGY LIMITED trading as LEADERTRONICS COMPANY
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA4973/1995

The court held that the plaintiff did not have actual, constructive or other notice of any defect in Koven's title at the times the cheques were negotiated to it; knowledge that Koven had financial difficulties and litigation was insufficient to put the plaintiff on inquiry and any reasonable inquiry would not have revealed the fraud, therefore the defendant had no arguable defence and the plaintiff was entitled to final judgment.