Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Jurisdiction

Legal area

Court

5 May 2026

李官東對大埔759阿信屋店

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2637
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCSA8/2026

The tribunal correctly applied the pricing evidence (store signage and receipt) to find no overcharge; the HK$50,000 damages claim lacked particulars and evidential foundation and was properly struck out summarily; the applicant produced no evidence to support allegations of adjudicator corruption; accordingly the application for leave to appeal lacked any real prospect of success and is refused.
15 Apr 2026

HE WEI v. ZHAO JIANGONG

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 1886
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA732/2025

Because the Writ was validly served in Hong Kong the defendant bore a very high burden which he did not discharge: the evidence indicated the intended and actual place of performance and significant dealings (fund transfer, conversion, investment and repayments) were connected to Hong Kong, there is a good arguable case Hong Kong law applies, the Beijing proceedings were commenced late and appear tactical and unrelated to the claimed sums, and the fresh evidence was inadmissible; accordingly Hong Kong is the appropriate forum and the stay and new evidence applications were dismissed.
27 Mar 2026

楊曉虹 v. BALLANI, BIPIN KISHINCHAND

Citation

[2026] HKLdT 16
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDPD181/2026

The review is dismissed because the misnomer in the Notice was a genuine, immaterial mistake that did not mislead the respondent or cause prejudice and was properly corrected; parallel Small Claims proceedings did not prevent the Tribunal from deciding possession and arrears; allegations of trespass/theft fall outside the Tribunal’s jurisdiction; and the tenant’s deposit claim was unsustainable in light of antecedent breach and the tenancy terms permitting deduction — therefore the original judgment ordering vacant possession and arrears stands and the review fails.
26 Mar 2026

RE CHAN CHI SAT

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 1766
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCB533/2025

On the totality of the evidence the Debtor was not ordinarily resident in Hong Kong, did not have a place of residence in Hong Kong, had not carried on business in Hong Kong during the relevant three year period and, having abandoned his domicile of choice, had reverted to his domicile of origin; accordingly the conditions in section 4(1) of the Bankruptcy Ordinance were not satisfied and the court lacked jurisdiction to make a bankruptcy order, so the amended petition is dismissed; separately, the court held that service of the statutory demand by advertisement on 16 July 2024 was a reasonab…
4 Mar 2026

BESTSHOP TECHNOLOGY (HONG KONG) COMPANY LTD v. LI QINSHUN AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2026] HKDC 362
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ5316/2023

Objective immigration records established the 1st Defendant was outside Hong Kong for the entire relevant period and did not come within the jurisdiction before the default judgment; under established authority service by insertion at the registered address was therefore invalid and the default judgment was irregular and must be set aside as of right.
2 Mar 2026

LEE YIN KEUNG JACKY v. LILY FENN & PARTNERS (A FIRM)

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 1202
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP63/2022

The court refused to vary the costs order nisi because the NOA was misconceived as the improper route for challenging taxation decisions and the Amendment Summons was unmeritorious; the court's sua sponte jurisdictional point did not justify depriving the successful plaintiff of costs. Therefore the costs order nisi was made absolute and the defendant ordered to pay costs, including costs of the variation application to be summarily assessed.
23 Feb 2026

黃對林

Citation

[2026] HKCA 245
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV971/2025

The Court held that the respondent did not have the right to appeal to the Court of Appeal because, under the District Court Rules (Cap.336H) Order No.58 r.1, he was required to apply to a District Court judge for leave; accordingly the notice of appeal filed in the Court of Appeal was incompetent and was struck out, and the respondent was ordered to pay the petitioner's costs subject to the assessment directions given.
10 Feb 2026

ZHAN XIANMING v. GRACEWOOD INTERNATIONAL LTD

Citation

[2026] HKCA 87
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV486/2024

The court held that special circumstances existed to justify security for costs because Zhan was impecunious, resided out of jurisdiction, and Gracewood would likely encounter difficulty or expense enforcing costs; Zhan failed to show sufficient countervailing factors in the merits or credible evidence of inability to pay; accordingly security of HK$750,000 was just and ordered, with stay and dismissal consequences for non-payment.
26 Jan 2026

HUNG YING ESTATES LTD v. MICHAELS MARIANNE NANNETTE

Citation

[2026] HKLdT 5
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDPD1452/2025

The Tribunal held that the tenant's obligation to pay rent is independent of the landlord's alleged breaches; the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to entertain the Respondent's counterclaims for damages or set‑offs in this possession proceeding; the Respondent had unilaterally abated rent while remaining in occupation, arrears therefore existed, the director who commenced proceedings had authority to act for the corporate landlord, and accordingly the original order for possession and payment of arrears and mesne profits was upheld and the review and stay applications were dismissed.
13 Jan 2026

DR SEYED MASOUD SAJJADI ALEHASHEM v. THE HONG KONG POLYTECHNIC UNIVERSITY AND OTHERS

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 262
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCIP48/2024

Plaintiff is ordinarily resident outside Hong Kong, has no fixed assets in Hong Kong, has not demonstrated impecuniosity or a high probability of success on the pleaded patent, copyright and contract claims, and therefore the court exercised its discretion to order security for costs of HK$200,000 to be paid by plaintiff by 16 February 2026; the striking out application was dismissed because defendants had no obligation to file a reply affirmation under the Consent Order.