Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Notice of appeal

Legal area

Court

25 Jun 2024

CHAN LAI SHING 對 THE HONGKONG AND SHANGHAI BANKING CORP.

Citation

[2024] HKCA 570
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV53/2024

Because the appellant consented and the respondent did not oppose cancellation, the Court of Appeal cancelled the notice of appeal filed 14 February 2024; having regard to the appellant's failure to comply with the Rules of the High Court which caused the respondent to incur costs, the appellant was ordered to pay the respondent's reasonable costs of the appeal, assessed on the summary procedure at HK$4,330, after discounting overlap with related proceedings.
21 May 2024

MR. CHOW KIN HANG ALI v. MASTER WONG OF COURT OF APPEAL

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 1346
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL766/2024

The application for leave is dismissed because the Applicant failed to identify any reasonably arguable public law grounds with a realistic prospect of success; the Registrar's letter was a non‑reviewable case management direction and the Supplementary Notices were prolix and non‑compliant with Order 59, justifying the Registrar's directions regarding the appeal bundle.
24 Apr 2019

TUNG CHUN CO LTD v. TOWN PLANNING BOARD

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 1027
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL9/2013

The Notice of Appeal was out of time because the relevant date for calculation was 28 June 2018; notwithstanding the delay the court granted a retrospective extension of time because the interests of justice required it given the arguable merits, respondent not pressing hopelessness, and manageable prejudice; costs ordered in the cause.
24 May 2018

THE HONGKONG AND SHANGHAI BANKING CORPORATION LTD v. SY SHUN WU AND OTHERS

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 1304
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP3269/2016

The application for extension of time was dismissed because the defendants failed to provide an adequate excuse for the 24-day delay (fundraising difficulties were not sufficient), the new arguments were raised too late and were untenable, and there were no real prospects of success on the merits (collateral agreement point failed).
2 Jun 2015

CHEUNG KWONG YUEN v. SUN HUIFANG

Citation

CHEUNG KWONG YUEN v. SUN HUIFANG
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP3306/2014

The respondent was granted an extension of time, but the Calderbank letter dated 4 May 2015 was not taken into account when assessing costs because the applicant was justified in issuing his summons; both applications arose from the respondent's failure to file the notice of appeal and the costs of both applications were therefore awarded to the applicant, with the applicant's claimed fees reduced from $52,270 to $29,320 (including $20,000 counsel fees).
19 May 2015

CHEUNG KWONG YUEN v. SUN HUIFANG

Citation

CHEUNG KWONG YUEN v. SUN HUIFANG
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP3306/2014

The court held the delay in filing and serving the Notice of Appeal was excusable given the respondent's legitimate difficulties and legal aid proceedings, refused to treat the draft notice as a Notice of Appeal, declined to re‑visit merits already considered when leave was granted, granted a final short extension to file and serve the Notice of Appeal out of time and dismissed the applicant's summons to lift the stay while leaving costs to be determined.
23 May 2014

WDA ARCHITECTS LTD v. MHS PLANNERS, ARCHITECTS & ENGINEERS AND ANOTHER

Citation

WDA ARCHITECTS LTD v. MHS PLANNERS, ARCHITECTS & ENGINEERS AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP838/2014

The judge found the delay was not inexcusable given the uncertainty and pending directions; applied the usual test for extension of time (delay, reasons, merits, prejudice); concluded the intended appeal and a trimmed down version of the amendments were reasonably arguable; accordingly granted an extension of time to file the notice of appeal.
28 Feb 2014

TPL v. WYY FORMERLY KNOWN AS WYY

Citation

TPL v. WYY FORMERLY KNOWN AS WYY
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP316/2013

The court granted extension because the respondent provided a credible explanation for the delay (confusion over settlement terms), the petitioner had not demonstrated prejudice beyond usual delay that could not be remedied, and the intended appeal raised questions of principle with reasonable prospects of success, so discretion should be exercised to allow the appeal to be heard.
11 Apr 2013

THE OWNERS AND/OR DEMISE CHARTERERS OF THE SHIP OR VESSEL “OOCL CHINA” v. THE OWNERS AND/OR DEMISE CHARTERERS OF THE SHIP OR VESSEL “DARYA BHAKTI”

Citation

THE OWNERS AND/OR DEMISE CHARTERERS OF THE SHIP OR VESSEL “OOCL CHINA” v. THE OWNERS AND/OR DEMISE CHARTERERS OF THE SHIP OR VESSEL “DARYA BHAKTI”
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP403/2013

The court granted an extension of time because the 53-day delay was excusable as an honest and understandable procedural mistake by the plaintiffs' solicitors, the delay was not substantial, the proposed appeal was reasonably arguable, and prejudice to defendants did not outweigh grant of relief; accordingly the plaintiffs were given leave to file a Notice of Appeal within the short extension and ordered to bear the costs of the application.
26 Apr 2010

RE LABOUR BUILDINGS LTD

Citation

RE LABOUR BUILDINGS LTD
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV37/2010

The Court held the appeal was hopeless and the appellant's solicitors acted improperly in pursuing it despite the company having no funds and in instructing counsel on a speculative basis; accordingly the solicitors must bear the costs personally and the costs are to be summarily assessed, fixed in the rounded figure of $600,000 as immediate taxation.