Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Interpretation of court rules

Legal area

Court

27 May 2025

MARK RICHARD CHARLTON SUTHERLAND v. CRB (a firm)

Citation

[2025] HKCA 495
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV501/2022

Order 59 r4(1)(c) is to be read as referring to the judgment or order appealed against and does not impose the 28‑day rule on a separate extension order; the CAMP Judgment granted a retrospective extension limited to specified grounds which regularised the original defective notice for those grounds, so the RNoA filed to those permitted grounds was not incompetent; the r5 non‑compliance was attributable to solicitor oversight and was not a proportionate ground for striking out, therefore the defendant's strike out application was dismissed.
1 Dec 2023

GUANGDONG YINGGAO SHIPPING LTD v. SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 3110
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1677/2015

Leave to appeal was refused because the Plaintiff failed to show it was plain and obvious that the Defendant never exchanged witness statements and failed to rebut the court's findings on veracity and facts supporting the competence of LSF; the absence of filed witness statements was not dispositive absent an order and the burden of proof rested on the Plaintiff.
1 Sept 2015

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. CHENG KAM MUN

Citation

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. CHENG KAM MUN
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP488/2015

The Court was bound by the Court of Appeal in Effiscient v Lehman that, for the purpose of Order 52 r3(2), entering an originating summons for hearing means issuance of a notice of appointment to hear; the 14‑day requirement in O.52 r3(2) is mandatory in criminal contempt proceedings and the court has no inherent jurisdiction to extend that time, therefore the leave granted on 20 March 2015 lapsed and the Time Summons must be dismissed.
21 Nov 2000

RE M.W. LEE & SONS ENTERPRISES LTD.

Citation

RE M.W. LEE & SONS ENTERPRISES LTD.
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCW467/1998

Ord.59 r.13 governs stays pending appeal and Ord.59 r.14(4) should be construed to require an application in the first instance to the particular judge who made the order unless it is impossible or impracticable to do so; on the merits the court refused both the stay of taxation and the stay of execution because the petitioner failed to establish special grounds, irreparable injury or real hardship and the balance of factors (including delay and availability of undertaking by respondents' solicitors) favoured refusing relief.
21 Nov 2000

RE HY & HT LEE BROTHERS & CO. LTD.

Citation

RE HY & HT LEE BROTHERS & CO. LTD.
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCW275/1998

The court held Ord.59 r.13 applies (or its principles should be adopted); "the court below" in Ord.59 r.14(4) means the particular judge who made the order so the present judge lacked jurisdiction absent impossibility or impracticability to apply to that judge; on the merits, applying the balancing exercise, considering delay, the size of the costs, the respondents' undertaking to repay and the petitioner's failure to establish special grounds, irreparable injury or real hardship, the applications for stays were dismissed.
17 Apr 1996

NG KAM MAN v. R.

Citation

NG KAM MAN v. R.
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCC83/1994

The court held that r.22 contains a built-in power to extend the period for serving notice of appointment and r.16 authorizes the Taxing Master to grant extensions even after expiry; there is no inconsistency between r.16 and r.22 and trivial or excusable delay does not in itself wholly discharge an order for costs; therefore the Master had jurisdiction to grant a seven-day extension and the appeal is dismissed.
9 Jun 1986

GTE DIRECTORIES (HK) LTD v. LEE WAI MING t/a W.N. LEE & CO

Citation

GTE DIRECTORIES (HK) LTD v. LEE WAI MING t/a W.N. LEE & CO
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ2410/1986

Where a plaintiff claims a debt or liquidated demand and an express contractual provision entitles recovery of costs on a solicitor and own client basis, a District Court judge has discretion to award those costs in default judgment and is not bound by the fixed costs in Part II of the Second Schedule to the Costs Rules; the contractual provision is enforceable subject to taxation of costs and absent public policy objection.
21 Dec 1984

UNITED MERCHANTS FINANCE LTD. v. TONG SANG AND ANOTHER

Citation

UNITED MERCHANTS FINANCE LTD. v. TONG SANG AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV174/1984

The Court set aside the 9 March judgment because it was irregularly entered before actual default and because the District Court Rules, construed properly, do not permit the default-procedure entry of judgment in mixed claims under r.22(6); the 27 March judgment was also set aside on discretionary grounds after substituting the Court's discretion, finding the delays were not inordinate in the circumstances and balancing the parties' interests.
3 Nov 1981

CAROLINE ANNE BABINGTON v. FUNG HING BIU

Citation

CAROLINE ANNE BABINGTON v. FUNG HING BIU
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ3776/1980

The District Court held that Order 3(5) of the Supreme Court Rules, as applied by Rule 9, permits the court to extend the period specified in Rule 31(2) before the Registrar has actually struck the action; accordingly the Court had jurisdiction to extend the time for the plaintiff to apply for a trial fixture and to defer the Registrar's power to strike out until 21 April 1981.