Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
Hong Kong decisions
Decisions matching the current search
The Court of First Instance refused leave to appeal and a stay over costs and taxation proceedings, holding the proposed appeal had no reasonable prospect of success.
Extension of time was refused because the delay was substantial, the applicant's reasons for delay were inadequate, and the proposed appeal had no real prospect of success as it failed to identify any legal or principled error by the trial judge and relied on matters irrelevant to the judgment; costs were awarded to respondent in the sum of HKD 60,000.
Source excerpt
The leave application was dismissed because the applicant failed to show any reasonable prospect of success or any legal error in the judge's discretionary costs orders and produced no credible evidence to justify recusal; the applicant also pursued the wrong procedural route and therefore the application was without merit.
Source excerpt
The court found that the prosecution had adduced sufficient prima facie evidence (timing of cheque encashment, seizure location, defendant's admissions and absence of legitimate records) to establish on a relative likelihood that the HK$220,000 was criminal proceeds, shifting the evidential burden to the putative owner; the owner failed to give a credible, reliable explanation or corroborative evidence to rebut the inference, so the court ordered forfeiture under s102 CPRO.
Source excerpt
The trial judge erred by relying on the appellant’s ambiguous WhatsApp apology (P1(14)) as a clear admission while having rejected the complainant’s evidence; read in context the message did not amount to an unequivocal admission of a touching constituting the charged offence, and therefore there was no proper basis to withhold costs under Cap.492 s.3 — appeal allowed and costs awarded.
Source excerpt
The application for leave to appeal was refused because the proposed grounds lacked a reasonable prospect of success, largely repeated points already considered and rejected by the trial judge, and there was no other compelling reason to permit an appeal; the judge properly considered the affidavit evidence, correctly applied applicable authorities (including persuasive foreign common law), and exercised judicial discretion lawfully on injunction and substitute service matters.
Source excerpt
The High Court refused leave to appeal and a stay after dismissing a Mareva injunction application, holding there was no reasonable prospect of success.
The plea was not equivocal or involuntary: the defendant received repeated, adequate legal advice over an extended period, signed multiple confirmations of intent to plead guilty, and made inconsistent and untruthful assertions when seeking further adjournments; the magistrate properly refused further delay in light of deliberate and repeated postponements, therefore there was no factual or legal basis to exercise the discretionary power to set aside the guilty plea.
Source excerpt
The applicant’s roughly 17‑month unexplained delay is excessive and unjustified and, on the merits, the proposed appeal has no real prospect of success because the trial judge’s interim maintenance decision was a permissible exercise of judicial discretion supported by the applicant’s own recorded admissions about income and willingness to pay; accordingly the court properly refused to grant leave out of time and declined to exercise discretion to permit the late appeal.
Source excerpt
The Court of Appeal quashed a wasted costs order against a barrister, holding that a short delay caused by traffic and weather did not meet the statutory threshold.
Explore more
