Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Interpretation of court orders

Legal area

Court

28 May 2025

BANK OF QINGDAO CO LTD v. OOO SECURITIES (HK) GROUP LTD (formerly known as ORIENTIERT XYZ SECURITIES LTD)

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 2223
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1127/2022

The Unless Order did not extend to the Amendment Summons because the phrase 'any other intended interlocutory applications' was limited to applications expressly intended at the time of the CM Order/TTQs; accordingly no relief from sanction was required and Master Val Chow's refusal to make an order on the Relief Summons was correct. The proposed Everglory and Clause 3.2 amendments were not bound to fail, were sufficiently particularised or arose from materials/pleadings already in the record, and caused little prejudice despite delay; leave to amend was therefore properly granted. The appell…
24 Jan 2025

SIN CHAN KAM 對 THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF WAI SUN BUILDING

Citation

[2025] HKLdT 2
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDMP1/2023

The tribunal held the injunction required, by its terms and purpose, that the respondent achieve the result of stopping water seepage; on the evidence and beyond reasonable doubt the respondent had not achieved that result by the deadline and manifested a contemptuous state of mind; contractors and consultants were held to have been authorised to act for the respondent so their conduct and knowledge were attributable; accordingly the committal and related orders were justified and leave to appeal was refused.
19 Jul 2024

SIN CHAN KAM 對 THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF WAI SUN BUILDING

Citation

[2024] HKLdT 62
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDMP1/2023

The injunction was properly construed as outcome‑oriented requiring the respondent to stop leakage to Shop D and its toilets; the applicant proved beyond reasonable doubt that by 29 August 2022 the respondent had not taken all necessary remedial measures to achieve that result; the respondent knew the facts making its omissions non‑accidental and thereby possessed the mental element for punishable civil contempt; accordingly committal is established and a sentencing hearing is directed.
28 Jun 2022

LAM YIN POK BOSCO, a minor by LAM PO YEE, his mother and next friend v. DR. CHAN YEE SHING also known as DR. CHAN YEE SHING ALVIN

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 1927
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCPI369/2010

The master did not err: in context DHCJ Seagroatt's phrase "the defendant's solicitors have their costs of today" meant the solicitors' costs of the application adjudicated that day, not strictly the physical hearing time; and the master's allowance of 1 hour for the defendant's consideration of the re-revised statement of damages was a reasonable exercise of taxation discretion. The Parents' review is dismissed.
21 May 2020

ESSILOR MANUFACTURING (THAILAND) CO., LTD v. WONG KAM WAI (TRADING AS SUN WAI LOK HK INTERNATIONAL COMPANY) AND OTHERS

Citation

[2020] HKCA 351
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV71/2020

The ex parte injunctions lapsed immediately after the specified return date of 7 February 2020 because the order language must be strictly construed; the dies non/common law extension does not apply where it was possible for the applicant to procure the inter partes hearing (including via Duty Judge) and therefore the Judge erred in refusing to consider the plaintiff's application only on the basis of lapse; the summons must be considered on its merits in the Court of First Instance and the matter is remitted.
31 Oct 2019

MGB also known as MAG v. GCB

Citation

[2019] HKFC 277
Court

Family Court
Case number

FCMC5376/2015

The court found that the AR Judgment of 19 June 2017 effected a final settlement of the Wife's maintenance by lump sums and capitalised payments; therefore the MPS ceased on that date, no judgment debt arose for the period to Decree Absolute, and the garnishee proceedings could not be sustained; the sum paid into court was ordered released to the Husband and costs were to follow the event in his favour.
10 Dec 2014

BUSHRA BIBI AND ANOTHER v. METHOD BUILDING & ENGINEERING WORKS LTD (in liquidation) AND OTHERS

Citation

BUSHRA BIBI AND ANOTHER v. METHOD BUILDING & ENGINEERING WORKS LTD (in liquidation) AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCPI301/2012

The court interpreted its earlier order as requiring the 3rd defendant to pay 33.5% of the gross damages assessed or agreed before deduction of employees' compensation. This construction best effectuates the purpose of contribution proceedings under s4(1) of the Civil Liability (Contribution) Ordinance by apportioning the full value of the plaintiffs' claim according to each tortfeasor's responsibility and avoiding a windfall to a tortfeasor who did not pay employees' compensation.
17 Dec 2009

MAN EARN LTD v. SING YAU SANG

Citation

MAN EARN LTD v. SING YAU SANG
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA5019/1998

Application for leave to appeal was refused because the plaintiff failed to show a reasonable prospect of success or any other reason in the interests of justice; the asserted error in the interpretation of the master's orders was unsubstantiated.
28 Oct 2002

WO HING ENGINEERING LTD. v TYCO ENGINEERING & CONSTRUCTION (HONG KONG) LTD.

Citation

WO HING ENGINEERING LTD. v TYCO ENGINEERING & CONSTRUCTION (HONG KONG) LTD.
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV1120/2000

The court found that the inclusion of the words "97% of" in paragraph 1(3) was an obvious clerical error inconsistent with the judgment which clearly intended that Wo Hing was entitled to its contracted 3% profit plus any additional costs; the order was amended under the slip rule by deleting the words "97% of".
14 Oct 1999

WFM MOTORS PTY LTD. v. MALCOLM MAYDWELL

Citation

WFM MOTORS PTY LTD. v. MALCOLM MAYDWELL
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV148/1995

Despite the formal order's omission of some wording from Rule 4(a), the judgment demonstrates the parties intended all conditions of Rule 4(a) to apply; therefore the security deposited (HK$100,000) was properly payable to the plaintiff's solicitors and the application for payment out was granted.