Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Leave to withdraw

Legal area

Court

12 May 2025

ATMI BT KARYA SADIN v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 1817
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL375/2020

The applicant failed to identify any arguable ground of review; the Board lawfully found the threat localized and internal relocation viable; there was no error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board's Decision and no realistic prospect of success, therefore leave is refused and the application to withdraw is refused and the leave application is dismissed.
4 Dec 2012

TSANG KIN SHING (BULL) v. LI CHUN CHAU AND OTHERS

Citation

TSANG KIN SHING (BULL) v. LI CHUN CHAU AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL13/2012

Leave to withdraw the election petition is granted; there was insufficient material to conclude the petition was an abuse of process or lacked bona fides from the outset, and accordingly costs are awarded to the respondents on a party-and-party basis to be taxed if not agreed rather than on an indemnity basis.
20 Jun 2008

BEST JOINT INVESTMENTS LTD v. KAGANI LTD

Citation

BEST JOINT INVESTMENTS LTD v. KAGANI LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2608/2006

The court awarded costs to the applicant because the plaintiff abandoned the discovery summons without valid reasons, the dispute had not become academic, the plaintiff failed to produce evidence to refute the applicant's assertions and therefore had little chance of success; accordingly costs follow the event, leave to withdraw the summons was granted, and the plaintiff's application for leave to appeal was dismissed.
16 May 2007

JEFFREY THOMAS ROBBINS AND ANOTHER v. PEAKTOP TECHNOLOGIES (USA) HONG KONG LTD

Citation

JEFFREY THOMAS ROBBINS AND ANOTHER v. PEAKTOP TECHNOLOGIES (USA) HONG KONG LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP2456/2006

The respondent failed to establish a real and probable risk that the applicants would misuse the accounting records; the court has jurisdiction to award costs on withdrawal; exceptional circumstances existed because the respondent itself removed the applicants as directors after undue delay in advancing its evidence and could have removed them earlier, thereby rendering the application moot; therefore leave to withdraw was granted and costs were awarded to the applicants.
17 Oct 1997

THE JARDINE ENGINEERING CORPORATION LTD. v. NGAI MOU CHING

Citation

THE JARDINE ENGINEERING CORPORATION LTD. v. NGAI MOU CHING
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV141/1997

Where a party applies for and is granted leave to withdraw an application for specific discovery, having obtained the tactical advantage of preserving the right to renew the application, the court will not disturb the costs order made on that withdrawal; the party is bound by the consequences of its election to withdraw.

Hong Kong Case Law

ATMI BT KARYA SADIN v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

TSANG KIN SHING (BULL) v. LI CHUN CHAU AND OTHERS

BEST JOINT INVESTMENTS LTD v. KAGANI LTD

JEFFREY THOMAS ROBBINS AND ANOTHER v. PEAKTOP TECHNOLOGIES (USA) HONG KONG LTD

THE JARDINE ENGINEERING CORPORATION LTD. v. NGAI MOU CHING