Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Judicial case management

Legal area

Court

6 Aug 2025

CHEN SIMON GUOMIN v. CHAN CHOI HAR IVY AND OTHERS

Citation

[2025] HKCA 730
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV8/2024

The defendants unequivocally abandoned their primary Sham Defence; they failed to plead material facts or adduce evidence to establish that the plaintiff was carrying on a money lending business so as to engage the MLO defences; the judge acted within his case management discretion in refusing cross-examination that would be a fishing exercise and in managing the conduct of self-represented but legally experienced defendants; accordingly there was no miscarriage of justice and the appeal is dismissed.
14 May 2024

THE HONG KONG HOUSING AUTHORITY v. LI YIK HO

Citation

[2024] HKCFA 12
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FACV3/2024

The summonses to re-fix the appeal hearing dates were dismissed because the non-availability of a preferred leading counsel (Lord Pannick KC) did not constitute a sufficiently strong and cogent reason to vacate court-fixed dates, the respondents had not shown efforts to secure alternative equivalent counsel or that lack of that particular counsel would cause injustice, and prejudice to applicants did not outweigh the public interest in maintaining the court's allocated hearing schedule.
27 Sept 2023

林張豐對黃亞新

Citation

[2023] HKCA 1104
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP31/2023

The proposed appeal was refused because the defendant's grounds failed to identify any legal error in the judge's application of Mediation Ordinance s8, were largely irrelevant or frivolous, and therefore disclosed no real prospect of success; consequently leave to appeal was properly denied and costs awarded to the plaintiff.
12 Jun 2023

CHUNG SUET WAN v. CHUNG SUET HAN AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2023] HKDC 808
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ5534/2020

The court found the plaintiff genuinely unfit to attend trial on medical evidence, that she is the sole key witness on the central issue of common intention and beneficial ownership, and that no substantial prejudice to defendants was demonstrated; balancing the need for just resolution against court efficiency, the judge held exceptional circumstances existed under O.25 r.3 RDC and vacated and adjourned the trial with directions and costs reserved.
20 Apr 2021

HKSAR v. HAN CHIN CHOU

Citation

[2021] HKCA 511
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC190/2019

The Court held that the judge's interventions were lawful case management and did not amount to bias or denial of a fair trial; disputed witness remarks were personality descriptions not propensity evidence and were not prejudicial; cross-examination of the pathologist was properly and fairly conducted and the expert's totality-based opinion was for the jury to weigh; references to lack of puttage and to inconsistencies were neutral and did not invite an adverse inference of guilt; the judge gave adequate directions about lies and credibility; taken as a whole the summing-up was fair and the…
14 Jan 2019

GOODWELL PROPERTY MANAGEMENT LTD v. LEE HUNG SING AND OTHERS

Citation

[2019] HKDC 42
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ1886/2016

The judge held the allowed amendments related to actual removals effected by owner votes which constitute expressions of owners' estimations and are not excluded by Scott v Sampson; the objections about sources, potential collateral inquiries and particular misconduct go to weight and are manageable at trial; consequently the proposed grounds had no reasonable prospect of success and leave to appeal was refused with costs.
8 Jul 2011

RASHAD MUHAMMAD v. GURUNG AMRIT SINGH t/a FEWA CO AND ANOTHER

Citation

RASHAD MUHAMMAD v. GURUNG AMRIT SINGH t/a FEWA CO AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV165/2010

The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial judge: defendants were not negligent and had taken reasonable precautions; the injury was caused by the plaintiff's own negligent conduct in handling the frame and chock; the pleaded statutory provisions either added nothing beyond common law or did not apply on the facts (CSSR reg 52(2)(a)); and the trial judge's credibility findings and damages assessment were not erroneous.
7 Sept 2010

GUO XIN INTERNATIONAL LTD v. CHEUNG PING KWONG AND ANOTHER

Citation

GUO XIN INTERNATIONAL LTD v. CHEUNG PING KWONG AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA973/2010

The court dismissed the defendants' summons for a stay dated 1 September 2010 because the defendants caused the delay and could not rely on a 'no time' excuse; in the exercise of case management powers and under the Civil Justice Rules the court refused an adjournment sine die and ordered the Order 14 summons to be heard immediately after the arbitration summons with specific tight filing deadlines and costs directions.
11 Sept 2008

CHAN KAM KEUNG v. HKSAR

Citation

CHAN KAM KEUNG v. HKSAR
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FAMC43/2008

Applying the informed bystander test from R v Yeung Mau-lam, the committee concluded the majority of the judge's interventions were bona fide case management and did not amount to bias sufficient to render the trial unfair; although the judge's refusal to permit the disabled applicant to sit during the verdict was unjustified and deplorable, that misconduct did not undermine the integrity of the entire trial nor the overwhelming evidential basis for conviction, and therefore leave to appeal was refused.
10 Dec 2007

CHINACHEM CHARITABLE FOUNDATION LTD v. CHAN CHUN CHUEN AND OTHERS

Citation

CHINACHEM CHARITABLE FOUNDATION LTD v. CHAN CHUN CHUEN AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAP8/2007

The court granted the appointment of administrators pendente lite because: there was an immediate need to preserve and secure large and varied estate assets; numerous companies and uncertain trust relationships required interim representation; the estate needed representation to settle related administration fees; the litigation was likely to be protracted; and appointment would prevent controversial or unilateral management decisions, with costs acknowledged but not decisive, and the parties having agreed on choice and terms of appointment.