Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Notice of hearing

Legal area

Court

4 Feb 2026

PHAM THI DU v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 588
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL429/2021

The applicant failed to demonstrate any error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board's decision; the Board's decision met the enhanced Wednesbury standard and the intended challenge was not reasonably arguable with realistic prospects of success, therefore leave to apply for judicial review was dismissed.
28 Oct 2021

YU XIAO YAN 對 SYNERGIS MANAGEMENT SERVICES LTD

Citation

[2021] HKDC 1296
Court

District Court
Case number

DCPI3763/2019

The summons for leave to appeal was dismissed because the applicant failed to demonstrate a reasonable prospect of success and failed to prove non-receipt of the court's notice; there were no other reasons in the interests of justice to justify a hearing. Consequently the summons was revoked and costs awarded to the respondent.
24 Jun 2021

LEUNG YUK LING v. SANIMEC CO., LTD

Citation

[2021] HKDC 757
Court

District Court
Case number

DCMP816/2021

Although service was proper and the court has power to proceed in the defendant's absence, the mandatory requirement in Order 28 r.3(3) that the Notice specify the orders or directions to be sought was not complied with by the plaintiff's use of Form 12; that mandatory non‑compliance required adjournment for the plaintiff to serve a compliant notice.
21 May 2020

HKSAR v. CHEUNG KIN CHUNG

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 841
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA591/2019

The magistrate correctly refused the application because the appellant failed to provide particulars to establish the essential ingredients of the offence; there was no evidence of bias or unfair hearing, and the appellant had been given proper notice and failed to attend, therefore the appeal is dismissed.
21 May 2020

HKSAR v. CHEUNG KIN CHUNG

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 845
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA603/2019

The magistrate rightly refused the application because the appellant failed to provide any particulars establishing the essential ingredients of the alleged offence; there was adequate notice of the hearing by registered post and no evidence of bias or unfair hearing, therefore the appeal is wholly devoid of merit and is dismissed.
21 May 2020

HKSAR v. CHEUNG KIN CHUNG

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 840
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA570/2019

The appeal is dismissed because the magistrate lawfully exercised her discretion in refusing the private summons when the appellant failed to provide details establishing the essential ingredients of the alleged offence; there was no evidence of bias and the appellant had been given notice of the hearing.
14 Nov 2018

HKSAR v. DEAKIN, SHERYL TERESA

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 2687
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA331/2018

Because the appellant failed to comply with the court's directions, gave only last‑minute notification within 14 days of the hearing, did not file required grounds or submissions, and was absent, the court properly refused the adjournment and dismissed the appeal for want of prosecution.
23 Mar 1987

LAM PAK WOON AND OTHERS v. NEW ART INDUSTRIAL CO

Citation

LAM PAK WOON AND OTHERS v. NEW ART INDUSTRIAL CO
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCLA88/1986

The Presiding Officer misapplied his discretion by refusing to set aside an ex parte award solely because the defendant's representative had not been completely frank; where the defendant had disclosed a defence, intended to defend, the absence was due to carelessness only, and respondents would suffer no irremediable prejudice, justice required setting the award aside and remitting the matter for rehearing under section 21A.
15 Sept 1972

K. WAH QUARRY CO., LTD v. WU KUT TAI

Citation

K. WAH QUARRY CO., LTD v. WU KUT TAI
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV10/1972

On the papers the District Judge was not justified in finding that the respondents did not make a bona fide mistake; because there was an arguable defence on the merits (dispute as to average wages) the award of the balance was set aside and the matter was remitted for the respondents' defence to be heard; respondents to pay costs thrown away.