Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Jurisdiction of master

Legal area

Court

20 Jan 2026

RE GAO, GUNTER

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 232
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCB4502/2025

The stay was refused because the pending appeal between the Petitioner and the Intervener does not affect the Debtor's separate monetary judgment; the Debtor cannot rely on appeal findings to which he is not a party and where he failed to file evidence or seek to join the appeal (and would face inordinate delay); the Master lawfully entered summary default judgment in chambers; and availability of third-party security does not bar proceedings against the guarantor. These points together demonstrate no proper basis to stay the bankruptcy petition.
10 Jun 2025

CMB WING LUNG BANK LTD v. LEUNG WAI YAN LINDAR, be appointed to represent the estate of LEUNG KWOK HONG, deceased

Citation

[2025] HKDC 930
Court

District Court
Case number

DCMP2724/2024

The court held that the Master had jurisdiction under O 15 r 6A(4)(b) to make inquiries and direct further submissions regarding the Carry On Order and service; the purported acknowledgment of service was defective because it was on behalf of unidentified 'Personal Representatives' and did not satisfy post-carry-on service requirements, so judgment could not be entered for the plaintiff and the Master's directions were appropriate; appeal dismissed.
18 Dec 2024

V CAPITAL LIMITED v. MARGARET CHIU

Citation

[2024] HKCFA 31
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FACV5/2024

O.49B r.1B(1)(c) is properly characterised as part of the execution and enforcement process for a judgment debt and therefore constitutes a remedy against the person of a bankrupt in respect of the debt and falls within "other legal proceedings" in BO s.12; consequently leave under BO s.12 was required before a Master could order imprisonment of an adjudicated bankrupt under that rule, and absent such leave the Master lacked jurisdiction so the imprisonment order was set aside and the appeal dismissed.
20 Nov 2020

HO KWOK WA v. YIP YUK KWAN AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 2930
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1096/2013

The Master lacked jurisdiction to try the Preliminary Issue because there was no consent of the parties as required by RHC Order 36 r.1; consequently the appeal challenging the Master's jurisdiction properly lay to the Court of First Instance and the Master's order of 8 April 2019 was set aside. RHC O.58 r.2 is limited to substantive appeals from trials by a Master conducted with the parties' consent and does not oust the CFI's jurisdiction to hear jurisdictional challenges.
5 May 2016

WING BO BUILDING CONSTRUCTION CO LTD v. DISCREET LTD

Citation

WING BO BUILDING CONSTRUCTION CO LTD v. DISCREET LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP775/2016

The judge had jurisdiction to entertain the stay application because the parties jointly requested the judge to deal with the substantive summons afresh and thereby waived the procedural irregularity arising from the way the matter came before the court; the stay granted under s20 of the Arbitration Ordinance is not a proper subject for appeal pursuant to s20(8); accordingly leave to appeal was refused and costs on an indemnity basis were awarded to the defendant in the sum fixed by the court.
20 Oct 2014

RE LEUNG KIT-HING, DORIS

Citation

RE LEUNG KIT-HING, DORIS
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV67/2013

The application to re-open the court's prior interlocutory judgment is dismissed because there are no exceptional circumstances; the two co-administratrices must be joined as parties to the appeal under Order 76 Rule 3 and Re Estate of Cheng Ki Sang [2009] 2 HKLRD 533; the unless order for service is valid and was extended to 31 October 2014; the summons seeking recourse to the Chief Judge is an abuse of process and is dismissed.
24 Nov 2010

CHIU YU FONG v. LAU KWONG WING

Citation

CHIU YU FONG v. LAU KWONG WING
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA6099/1999

The master lacked jurisdiction to conduct what amounted to a trial and to determine the parties' substantive rights without the parties' consent under Order 36, rule 1; the matter was a trial on affirmations with cross-examination, not a mere interlocutory application, and the master's decision was set aside and the plaintiff's appeal allowed.
24 Aug 2009

YU HONG PING AND ANOTHER v. KENNETH YUEN

Citation

YU HONG PING AND ANOTHER v. KENNETH YUEN
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1104/2009

An application under Section 33(3) PAO for removal of a personal representative is an action (not part of non-contentious probate) but the court may by direction under Order 28 Rule 3A adjourn the matter to chambers where a probate master, deriving jurisdiction via Order 32 Rule 11, can consider and, where appropriate and with proper consents and documentation, determine the application on papers; the court must ensure the statutory criteria for removal are satisfied.
6 Jun 2008

CITIC KA WAH BANK LTD v. CHINA’S BEST LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

CITIC KA WAH BANK LTD v. CHINA’S BEST LTD AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP2313/1996

The master accepted the Mother's credibility and documentary corroboration (bank passbooks and medical records), found she transferred the funds to the Daughter to be held for the care of her ill husband and never intended to divest beneficial ownership, concluded a trust was created and therefore the monies beneficially belong to the Mother, and accordingly dismissed the Notices of Garnishee Order to Show Cause and discharged the Garnishee Orders Nisi.
6 Nov 2001

THE CHINA STATE BANK LTD. v. GOBOWAY INVESTMENT LTD. & OTHERS

Citation

THE CHINA STATE BANK LTD. v. GOBOWAY INVESTMENT LTD. & OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP6216/2000

The Master lacked jurisdiction to enter judgment under O.88 because the mortgage security had been released and the claim therefore ceased to be a mortgage action; alternatively the Master lacked jurisdiction under O.28 because an originating summons should be determined in open Court, so the Master's order of 3 August 2001 was set aside and the matter was ordered to proceed by writ with directions for pleadings.