Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Judgment summons

Legal area

Court

23 Jan 2026

LCH v. WPSN

Citation

[2026] HKCFA 5
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FAMV133/2025

Where a judgment creditor possesses sufficient evidence to establish beyond reasonable doubt that a judgment debtor intentionally breached an undertaking to pay, the creditor may proceed directly to committal without a preliminary judgment summons examination; the debtor must adduce evidence of inability to pay if relied upon, and failure to avail himself of opportunities to be heard is dispositive. Accordingly the leave application was dismissed.
27 Aug 2025

LCH v. WPSN

Citation

[2025] HKCA 783
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV327/2024

Leave to appeal refused because the proposed questions were not reasonably arguable: direct committal under Order 52 r 2 is available and not precluded by YBL or PD SL10.2; lack of funds is not a generally arguable defence outside the specific factual context; the penal notice point failed because no objection was taken below, the Flywin principle applies, and the order in question was endorsed with and served with a penal notice. Costs awarded and no stay granted.
28 Sept 2023

WKI v. CKW

Citation

[2023] HKFC 190
Court

Family Court
Case number

FCMC11528/2019

The respondent’s obligation to pay interim child maintenance under the 1 April 2021 order remains enforceable because the petitioner’s procedural failures (late service and a de minimis HK$20 shortfall) did not materially prejudice the respondent and therefore do not excuse non-payment.
4 Nov 2022

TIGER RESORT ASIA LTD v. KAZUO OKADA AND OTHERS

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 3354
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA3017/2017

The court held that despite the amount claimed and some intertwining of matters, formal taxation was not warranted; most of the claimed costs were reasonable given the volume of underlying documents and conduct, but costs for drafting the statement of costs were disallowed and certain fees reduced. The court summarily assessed HK$980,000 for the Judgment Summons and Relief Summons and HK$62,000 for the application to vary, and made no further orders for costs.
7 Oct 2022

TIGER RESORT ASIA LTD v. KAZUO OKADA AND OTHERS

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 3118
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA3017/2017

Given D1's intentional non-compliance with court orders and the incredible nature of his sworn explanations, the court exercised its broad discretion over costs, varied Part 1 of the Costs Order Nisi and ordered D1 to pay two‑thirds of the Plaintiff's Judgment Summons costs on an indemnity basis (to be summarily assessed together with the Relief Summons costs and paid forthwith); additionally D1 must pay the costs of the variation application on a party-and-party basis with one counsel; summary assessment to be conducted on the papers with specified filing timelines.
24 Aug 2021

T v. W

Citation

[2021] HKFC 169
Court

Family Court
Case number

FCMP38/2007

The court found the father wilfully in contempt for ceasing payments and concealing financial and residential information such that his conduct impeded the course of justice; no effective alternative remedies existed; therefore Hadkinson conditions were justified and proportionate: he must pay specified sums to remove the impediment before his variation application may proceed, and he must disclose his current residential address within 28 days.
12 Nov 2020

BT and CBY (formerly known as YHK and also known as YCB)

Citation

[2020] HKCFA 35
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FAMV121/2020

Leave to appeal was refused because none of the proffered questions raised issues of sufficient general or public importance, many questions were unarguable or were not raised below or were factual, and the Court of Appeal correctly applied YBL v LWC by assessing the husband's means during the compliance period and properly concluded contempt and justified committal.
4 Sept 2020

CWYJ v. LTYE

Citation

[2020] HKFC 182
Court

Family Court
Case number

FCMC1135/2016

The court found on the evidence that the respondent had unequivocally relocated to Singapore, declared intention to remain there, ignored court attendance obligations, and given his payment history and substantial arrears, there was a real risk he would not return and enforcement of the consent order would be obstructed or delayed; accordingly the discretion required extending the prohibition order and dismissing the discharge application.
20 Sept 2019

朱對陳

Citation

[2019] HKFC 247
Court

Family Court
Case number

FCMC1206/2006

The application to restore the 2012 judgment summons was dismissed because the applicant had participated in and received payments under a comprehensive 2017 settlement that resulted in her receiving sums exceeding the computed arrears; equitable estoppel and the public interest in finality bar reopening the claim, and costs were awarded to respondent.
19 Sept 2019

CX v. FCM

Citation

[2019] HKFC 245
Court

Family Court
Case number

FCMC6410/2007

Leave was granted because the Petitioner had taken reasonable steps to pursue the outstanding sum, the delay in commencing proceedings was not excessive given her residence in Shanghai and attendant costs, the Respondent did not dispute the outstanding amount, and special circumstances existed; the court therefore allowed enforcement of RMB268,000 and ordered the Respondent to pay HK$5,785 shortfall within 14 days.