Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Litigant in person

Legal area

Court

6 May 2025

STANDARD CHARTERED BANK (HONG KONG) LTD v. LEWIS PETER JOHN

Citation

[2025] HKDC 728
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ5479/2021

The court refused leave to appeal and refused to extend time because the defendant failed to show reasonable prospects of success or other interest of justice: the alleged crucial documents were never the subject of any application for specific discovery nor deposed to in affidavit evidence, the defendant failed to lodge authorities relied upon (many AI-sourced), and the intended appeal was devoid of merit; the costs order nisi had become absolute and variation was without merit.
2 Dec 2024

STANDARD CHARTERED BANK (HONG KONG) LTD v. LEWIS PETER JOHN

Citation

[2024] HKDC 2030
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ5479/2021

Plaintiff's application for summary judgment was properly constituted and established the indebtedness. Defendant failed to present credible evidence of a real or bona fide defence and his factual assertions (non‑agreement to terms, alleged waiver of interest, concluded restructuring plan, loss from account closure) were implausible or unsupported. The counterclaim disclosed no reasonable cause of action and was plainly unsustainable. Therefore summary judgment and striking out of the counterclaim were justified and the appeal was dismissed with costs to the plaintiff.
26 Jul 2024

SUCCESS LANE DEVELOPMENT LIMITED V. FERGURSON HONG KONG LIMITED trading as NEW WORLD MILLENNIUM HONG KONG HOTEL

Citation

[2024] HKDC 1220
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ2191/2023

No good reason was shown to vary the Leave Decision Costs Order Nisi; summary assessment and immediate payment of interlocutory costs was appropriate given absence of special circumstances or substantial grounds to dispute the sums, therefore the Present Summons is dismissed and Plaintiff ordered to pay Defendant's costs of this application summarily assessed at HK$21,000 payable forthwith; the existing costs order nisi remains in force.
14 Jun 2024

THE JOINT AND SEVERAL TRUSTEES OF THE PROPERTY OF SO CHING WAN v. ASSEN LTD (IN LIQUIDATION) AND OTHERS

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 1536
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCB4475/2002

Applying O62 r28(4A) the Master held the Section A costs were to be taxed on indemnity basis so doubts resolve for the receiving party; SL and NK, as professional liquidators, demonstrated pecuniary loss and were entitled to above-ordinary rates though moderated by litigant-in-person rules; the Master upheld the previously allowed hourly rates ($4,000 indemnity, $3,600 party-and-party) and the time allowances after item-by-item review, rejected the grounds that lack of leave/sanction or litigant-in-person status defeated recovery, and dismissed the paying party's review in full, awarding cost…
12 Oct 2020

RE HOSSAIN BELAYET

Citation

[2020] HKCA 798
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP7/2020

The application for leave failed because the alleged errors related only to the applicant's individual circumstances and did not raise a question of great general or public importance under s22(1)(b); a new complaint about country of origin information was impermissible and lacked particulars; therefore the statutory requirements for leave were not met and extending time would be futile.
9 May 2019

LYMC v. LCW

Citation

[2019] HKFC 118
Court

Family Court
Case number

FCMC13526/2015

Leave to appeal was refused because the respondent's draft grounds were unfocused, repetitive, largely unrelated to the impugned orders and did not disclose an arguable case with reasonable prospects of success; there was no demonstrated error in the exercise of judicial discretion in the summary assessment of costs and the court properly applied a broad brush summary assessment to fix global costs at $40,000 to be paid from the respondent's share of sale proceeds.
29 Sept 2017

LUCY MICHAELS v. CITYBASE PROPERTY MANAGEMENT LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

LUCY MICHAELS v. CITYBASE PROPERTY MANAGEMENT LTD AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCPI899/2016

Summary judgment was properly refused because the defendants raised genuine and serious factual disputes that require a trial; however, the striking out of the claim for failure to file an amended statement of claim was set aside and the plaintiff given leave to continue, the proceedings were transferred to the District Court under s.43(1) Cap 336, and the 2nd defendant was substituted with the correct corporate entity; the plaintiff's appeal against refusal of summary judgment failed.
12 Nov 2014

SO YUK PING v. TAM SUM SHING

Citation

SO YUK PING v. TAM SUM SHING
Court

District Court
Case number

DCMP2760/2013

The court exercised its discretion to refuse an order for sale because the defendant established compelling reasons (credible claim of irregularity affecting the default judgment and charging order, demonstrable financial hardship in supporting his son, and mental health considerations) sufficient to outweigh the plaintiff's prima facie right to enforce the judgment; the defendant must be given an opportunity to challenge the default judgment and charging order; appeal dismissed.
23 Sept 2014

YSYM v. LHB

Citation

YSYM v. LHB
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1514/2014

Leave to appeal was refused because the intended appeal lacked reasonable prospects of success and no other interest of justice warranted a hearing: the husband failed to show the trial judge's factual findings were plainly wrong or that he was deprived of a fair opportunity to call witnesses; the maintenance award was within the judge's discretionary ambit; accordingly leave and stay were refused and costs were ordered against the Husband with a specified gross sum assessment.
18 Jul 2012

HKSAR v. ALEXANDRE CERVEIRA

Citation

HKSAR v. ALEXANDRE CERVEIRA
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA165/2012

The conviction was upheld because the magistrate's findings that the MultaRadar evidence was reliable and that alleged obstructions or procedural delays did not prejudice the appellant were supported by the prosecution's witnesses, expert reports and photographs and were not shown to be unreasonable. The costs order, however, was set aside in part because the magistrate failed to make an adequate inquiry into the appellant's ability to pay taxed costs as required by the governing statute and case law; on reassessment the appellate court fixed the prosecution's costs at HKD 10,000.