Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Order 113 rules of the high court

Legal area

Court

28 Nov 2023

CHEUNG SUI KAN v. BOOKBACK LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 3179
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1598/2022

The court refused leave to appeal and all stay and relief applications because the challenges were not arguable, applicants failed to particularise fresh evidence or show inability to pay, and payment conditions were justified to prevent abuse while applicants remained in possession of valuable properties; the court maintained the interim stay of the writ of possession and awarded indemnity costs on summary assessment.
31 Dec 2015

SKY TRINITY DEVELOPMENT LTD v. PERSONS UNKNOWN IN OCCUPATION OF LOT NO.11 IN DEMARCATION DISTRICT NO. 116, YUEN LONG, NEW TERRITORIES, HONG KONG

Citation

SKY TRINITY DEVELOPMENT LTD v. PERSONS UNKNOWN IN OCCUPATION OF LOT NO.11 IN DEMARCATION DISTRICT NO. 116, YUEN LONG, NEW TERRITORIES, HONG KONG
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP3374/2015

The plaintiff, being the registered owner and having filed an affidavit proving title and occupation by unknown persons and having effected posting of the originating documents with no appearance or opposition, is entitled to an order of possession under Order 113; accordingly the court granted possession in terms of the originating summons.
3 Apr 2008

TANG MAN KIT AND FOO TAK CHING suing as MANAGERS OF WAH YAN MO FAN HEUNG v. YAULEY TIMBER CO LTD

Citation

TANG MAN KIT AND FOO TAK CHING suing as MANAGERS OF WAH YAN MO FAN HEUNG v. YAULEY TIMBER CO LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP589/2007

Taken together the direct inspection evidence and the defendant's own surveyor's plan demonstrating no clear demarcation and structures spanning both the Land and STT YL358, together with the common ownership link to the prior occupier, made the defendant's denial of occupation unbelievable; the defendant failed to demonstrate any triable issue under Order 113 and the summary order for possession therefore stands.
16 May 2007

LAU TIM FAT AND OTHERS v. LI BANG YUEN AND OTHERS

Citation

LAU TIM FAT AND OTHERS v. LI BANG YUEN AND OTHERS
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV422/2006

The Court held that because Deputy High Court Judge Muttrie had justification for granting the stay and the appeal against the stay would not have been allowed, the appeal in CACV 422/2006 failed for costs purposes even though the stay lapsed after the main appeal; therefore costs of CACV 422/2006 are payable to the respondents.
12 Feb 2007

TANG SING YU AND OTHERS v. TANG TAT KWONG AND OTHERS

Citation

TANG SING YU AND OTHERS v. TANG TAT KWONG AND OTHERS
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV361/2004

The Vice‑President refused the application for a stay of execution and refused to extend time because there were no viable grounds for leave to the Court of Final Appeal and no proper filed application for such leave; accordingly an extension of time was not justified and costs were awarded to the plaintiffs.
6 Mar 2002

HILDER CO. LTD. v. OCCUPIER(S) OF PREMISES

Citation

HILDER CO. LTD. v. OCCUPIER(S) OF PREMISES
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP3115/2001

Service was properly effected by the plaintiff; allegations that the posted documents were removed were inadmissible hearsay and unsubstantiated; the applicant's adverse possession case was vague, inconsistent and contradicted by aerial evidence and thus did not present a defence with a real prospect of success; accordingly the application to set aside the default judgments failed.

Hong Kong Case Law

CHEUNG SUI KAN v. BOOKBACK LTD AND OTHERS

SKY TRINITY DEVELOPMENT LTD v. PERSONS UNKNOWN IN OCCUPATION OF LOT NO.11 IN DEMARCATION DISTRICT NO. 116, YUEN LONG, NEW TERRITORIES, HONG KONG

TANG MAN KIT AND FOO TAK CHING suing as MANAGERS OF WAH YAN MO FAN HEUNG v. YAULEY TIMBER CO LTD

LAU TIM FAT AND OTHERS v. LI BANG YUEN AND OTHERS

TANG SING YU AND OTHERS v. TANG TAT KWONG AND OTHERS

HILDER CO. LTD. v. OCCUPIER(S) OF PREMISES