Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Interim orders

Legal area

Court

11 Nov 2025

陳海瀅對郭照佳及另一人

Citation

[2025] HKDC 1940
Court

District Court
Case number

DCPI1776/2023

Plaintiff provided no reasonable explanation for failure to comply with court orders; two of the impugned orders were inter-partes and not amenable to set-aside by application in lieu of appeal; although the costs order of 25/04/2024 involved a unilateral procedure the court afforded a re-hearing opportunity and, on merits, would reach the same outcome; accordingly the impugned orders stand and the appeal is dismissed.
27 Aug 2024

黎對凌

Citation

[2024] HKCA 812
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP74/2024

Leave to appeal was refused because the applicant failed to show a reasonable prospect of success or other compelling reason: the lower judges lawfully and reasonably exercised their discretion in assessing interim maintenance and travel permission, made proportionate assessments of needs and ability to pay, and did not commit legal error warranting appellate intervention.
7 Aug 2024

WSSA v. SYH

Citation

[2024] HKCA 735
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP338/2023

Leave to appeal was refused because the husband failed to demonstrate a reasonably arguable case of apparent bias; the judge applied correct legal principles, considered the relevant materials and case management choices were within discretion and not plainly wrong; accordingly recusal was not required and a stay was not justified.
28 Jul 2023

VDR, BA v. TOY

Citation

[2023] HKFC 150
Court

Family Court
Case number

FCMP171/2020

Leave to appeal was refused because the mother’s draft grounds lacked particularity and had no reasonable prospect of success, the application was filed within the correct post-Order Absolute timetable so no extension was required, and supervisory access and maintenance of the status quo were justified given the mother’s history and the need to protect the children and preserve trial management.
30 Jun 2023

WSSA v. SYH

Citation

[2023] HKFC 125
Court

Family Court
Case number

FCMC4633/2020

Applying the apparent bias test the judge examined each ground (D1–D7) and found the impugned orders and directions were lawful case management decisions based on material evidence (expert reports, social welfare memo, Official Solicitor concerns) rather than indications of bias; vacating the trial and interim orders were justified to protect the children and manage court resources; the recusal summons therefore failed and costs were awarded to the Petitioner.
21 Mar 2023

王對陳

Citation

[2023] HKCA 372
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP213/2022

The Court refused leave on all four summonses because the respondent failed to identify any legal, factual or discretionary errors by the three judges, most applications were grossly out of time without satisfactory explanation, the asserted grounds were incoherent and lacked any real prospect of success, and the interim/case-management orders had been overtaken by the final judgment; accordingly leave was refused and costs were ordered, with assessment by paper procedure and no oral hearing permitted under Order 59A(8).
17 Jun 2022

WKI also known as IWKV v. CKW also known as WCKW

Citation

[2022] HKCA 889
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP123/2022

The application for leave to appeal out of time was dismissed because the Interim Access Order was a permissible interim exercise of judicial discretion pending the custody trial and the intended appeal had no reasonable prospect of success; consequently leave to appeal out of time was refused and procedural restriction under Order 59, r.2A(8) was imposed.
17 May 2022

LYYC v. CHL and CSMS, the Executrices of the Estate of CGSK also known as CSKG, Deceased

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 1431
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP683/2021

The court held that a party may apply for a further interim order under section 7 Cap 481 notwithstanding an earlier consent order providing interim litigation funding; section 7 is wide enough to permit an interim lump sum; the applicant's immediate need and merits threshold were not shown to have diminished since the earlier interim order; accordingly a further interim lump sum for litigation funding was granted in part (HKD 3,350,000) with ancillary costs directions, and the court confirmed it had no power to vary or dismiss the Consent Order under Cap 481 s8.
23 Mar 2021

S v. C

Citation

[2021] HKFC 61
Court

Family Court
Case number

FCMC15393/2018

On a broad‑brush assessment the Wife demonstrated immediate recurring needs and limited deployable resources and the Husband had failed to make full and timely disclosure such that adverse inferences were justified; accordingly the Respondent was ordered to pay interim maintenance of HK$28,500 per month and contribute HK$20,000 per month towards the Wife's legal costs (both backdated to 1 September 2020), with directions for payment to solicitors and an order nisi for party and party costs, and disclosure directions for the Husband's bank statements and tax assessment.
27 Jan 2021

L, AP v. P, GG

Citation

[2021] HKFC 20
Court

Family Court
Case number

FCMC9358/2018

Applying section 3 Cap 192 and a broad-brush assessment of needs and means, the court concluded the Respondent could afford interim support, trimmed unsubstantiated items from the Petitioners claim, and ordered interim maintenance of HK$25,000 per month (backdated) together with a contribution to litigation costs and an adverse costs order reflecting the Respondent's non-compliance with directions.