Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Leave to discontinue

Legal area

Court

30 May 2025

SHIH HUA INVESTMENT CO., LTD v. ZHANG AIDONG AND OTHERS

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 2335
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCW198/2016

The Amended Petition had become academic as a result of the company's uncontested winding up and the likely outcome could not be determined without disproportionate investigation; justice required departing from the general rule and making no order as to costs in respect of the A Petition, the Discontinuance Summons and the Striking Out Summons, but on a nisi basis the court ordered that one third of the costs of the costs-only hearing be paid by the 1st and 2nd Respondents to the Petitioner, taxed if not agreed, with certificate for counsel.
18 Jan 2024

AU DIN HAR ELLEN v. AU YEE WAN also known as YEE WAN AU AND OTHERS

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 199
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1591/2022

The Master’s order of 13 June 2023 is set aside because the plaintiff was entitled to discontinue the action without leave and the defendants failed to establish estoppel or consent sufficient to revive jurisdiction; the Notice of Discontinuance took effect on service and costs consequences under O.62 r.10 followed; having considered conduct and incurred steps, the court made no order as to costs for the subsequent period.
14 Sept 2021

KAM PAK LI INVESTMENTS LTD v. LI SUI YEE AND OTHERS

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 2734
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1454/2020

Leave to discontinue was granted and, absent exceptional circumstances or compelling reason to depart from the presumption in Order 21 rule 3, the Applicant must pay the costs of the 5th Respondent; the amount is to be summarily assessed on paper with specified timetabled filings.
23 Jul 2020

BRIGHTOIL PETROLEUM (HOLDINGS) LTD v. THE STOCK EXCHANGE OF HONG KONG LTD

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 1601
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL825/2020

The application for leave to apply for judicial review (and the application to discontinue) was dismissed because the Listing Review Committee provides an adequate alternative de novo remedy that renders the Listing Committee's intermediate procedures academic, there was no systemic procedural unfairness or requirement for two adversarial hearings, the Applicant's conduct in seeking a stay then attempting to discontinue was abusive, and costs follow the event.
22 Aug 2018

YEUNG KAM WAH v. THE MEDICAL COUNCIL OF HONG KONG AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 1939
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL313/2018

Because the 2nd Interested Party opposed the Applicant's application for leave to discontinue (necessitating the hearing on 25 July 2018) and her opposition was not shown to be reasonably justified, the 2nd Interested Party must pay the Applicant's costs of that hearing and of the supplemental submissions dated 16 August 2018; otherwise costs are ordered as set out (Respondents to pay Applicant's costs save for the hearing, no order between Applicant and 1st Interested Party, and save for the hearing no order between Applicant and 2nd Interested Party).
14 Feb 2018

FIRST KIND LTD v. WONG KWOK FAI PATRICK, APPOINTED BY THE ORDER OF THE LANDS TRIBUNAL DATED 29TH JUNE 2017 TO REPRESENT THE ESTATE OF WONG SHEK, DECEASED AND OTHERS

Citation

[2018] HKLdT 7
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDCS15000/2014

The Lands Tribunal, by virtue of the amended s10(1) LTO, has inherited the CFI's inherent jurisdiction to set aside a notice of discontinuance filed without leave where there is abuse of process; however, on the facts before the Tribunal the applicant's discontinuance of three CS applications was not established to be an abuse of process sufficient to set aside the Notices, so the summonses to set aside were dismissed and costs were awarded to the applicant.
14 Feb 2018

FIRST KIND LTD v. YUET LOONG INVESTMENT COMPANY LTD

Citation

[2018] HKLdT 7
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDCS14000/2014

The Tribunal held that R27(1) LTR governs discontinuance and is clear that discontinuance may be without leave, but that under the amended s10(1) LTO the Tribunal has inherited the CFI's inherent jurisdiction to set aside discontinuances procured by abuse of process. Applying the abuse test and the facts, the Tribunal found no established abuse sufficient to set the Notices aside and therefore dismissed the summonses to set aside; costs were awarded to the applicant.
14 Mar 2016

KWAN PUI SIN v. THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF MANDARIN COURT (SHANGHAI STREET)

Citation

KWAN PUI SIN v. THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF MANDARIN COURT (SHANGHAI STREET)
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDBM253/2014

The applicant failed to show, without trial, that her case was so strong she would inevitably have prevailed; principles from Anmol Kumar Sawlani apply to Lands Tribunal discontinuances; duties under Schedule 3 rest on office bearers and applicant had arguable responsibility or delegation failings; given these factors and that the applicant was repeatedly warned about locus and chose to continue until trial, the applicant must pay the respondent's costs of the entire proceedings upon discontinuance, including costs reserved, to be taxed on District Court scale if not agreed, and at least cost…
29 May 2014

FANG MENG SUNG, JOHN v. LUK MAN LOK ROCKY AND OTHERS

Citation

FANG MENG SUNG, JOHN v. LUK MAN LOK ROCKY AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1959/2009

Where default judgments were set aside and the court fixed a fresh timetable for defence, the time for discontinuance under Order 21 r 2 was reset; the notice served on 29 July 2013 was therefore within the permissible period and valid; no abuse of process was demonstrated; defendants' defence and counterclaim filed after service were expunged and costs ordered.
8 Aug 2012

QIYANG LTD AND OTHERS v. MEI LI NEW ENERGY LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

QIYANG LTD AND OTHERS v. MEI LI NEW ENERGY LTD AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA420/2011

Leave to discontinue the counterclaim was refused because the counterclaim and the 2012 Action involved the same parties and cause of action, the counterclaim had already progressed and any alleged defect could be remedied by amendment, clause 11 did not require prior written notice, and permitting discontinuance would cause duplication, waste judicial resources and be contrary to case management principles; consequently the 2012 Action was struck out.