Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Order 14

Legal area

Court

16 Jan 2025

THE HONG KONG SETTLERS HOUSING CORPORATION LTD v. TAM WAI LAN

Citation

[2025] HKDC 97
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ5582/2023

Service by ordinary post was ultimately proven to comply with Order 65 r5 after acceptance of a supplemental affirmation showing use of the firm's private franking machine; the defendant failed to prove non-receipt on the balance of probabilities; the defendant, however, demonstrated a real prospect of success because the judicial review grounds were reasonably arguable and therefore the court exercised its residual discretion to set aside the Order 14 judgment; limited prejudice to the plaintiff from setting aside was established and the defendant did not seek restoration of possession.
9 Jan 2025

WU YUAN HONG v. CHINA ZENITH CHEMICAL GROUP LTD

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 228
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2082/2023

The Defendant's 'evidence of payment' defence was speculative, self-contradictory and not capable of belief when measured against objective documents (Register entry, issued certificate and board resolution), so no leave to defend on that issue; however, there is a bona fide triable issue of contractual interpretation as to Clause 4 (prepaid interest to the first bondholder), and the Defendant is granted unconditional leave to defend that discrete issue; the Master's conditional order is set aside and judgment for principal and accrued interest is entered accordingly.
31 Oct 2024

CHINA CONSTRUCTION BANK (ASIA) CORPORATION LTD v. KLARENKEN ENTERPRISE LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 2691
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1515/2023

Defendants' asserted defences were not reasonably arguable because there was no credible contemporaneous evidence of the alleged Collateral Agreement or bank representations, no effective set-off or accepted placement of funds at the bank's disposal to discharge the debt, and the clear terms of the guarantees preserved the bank's right to pursue guarantors; accordingly there were no triable issues warranting refusal of summary judgment and both appeals were dismissed.
13 Dec 2023

WANG YUEXIAN v. XINYANG MAOJIAN GROUP LTD formerly known as CHINA ZENITH CHEMICAL GROUP LTD

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 3236
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA231/2022

The defendant failed to raise any arguable or believable triable defence to the claim for $5,500,000; the proposed Clause 5.2 defence and the fresh evidence were inadmissible or not credible on the Ladd v Marshall standard; partial summary judgment could be granted notwithstanding reliance on aspects of the defendant's purported case; accordingly the appeal was dismissed and summary judgment for $5,500,000 was upheld.
27 Jan 2023

CANADIAN INTERNATIONAL EDUCATION ORG CO., LTD AND ANOTHER v. KAREN TERESA FERRIS COLE AND OTHERS

Citation

[2023] HKCA 87
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP421/2022

The Court held the Recorder did not err in principle or in the exercise of his discretion in reserving costs; given the imminent trial, the potential reuse of materials, and the difficulty of separating taxation items attributable solely to the summons in a modest claim, reserving costs for determination at trial was reasonably open to the Recorder. The intended appeal had no reasonable prospect of success and leave to appeal was refused; the Court dismissed the defendants' summons and summarily assessed costs at HK$80,000 (order nisi).
28 Nov 2022

CANARA BANK v. GRACE ON LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 3525
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1759/2019

The appeal was dismissed because the judge found the defendants’ forgery defence inherently implausible and unsupported by cogent and compelling evidence, delayed in being raised, lacking particulars or police report, inconsistent with contemporaneous documents (including demands and a July 2018 company letter) and thus did not raise a triable issue to defeat summary judgment; master’s summary judgment was therefore upheld.
11 Apr 2022

MEMORAN CO LTD v. THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF MEI HING MANSION

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 1028
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCT18/2020

Leave to appeal was refused because the proposed grounds lacked a reasonable prospect of success: the interlocutory injunction was granted on its merits (undertakings addressed only the stay), the judge did not err in treating the plaintiff as the practical winner for costs purposes and in exercising discretion to award costs subject to a modest deduction, and the Order 14 application being unsuccessful did not demonstrate impropriety warranting reversal of the costs order.
10 Feb 2021

KWOK WAI PAN v. CHAN TUNG YEUNG ANDREW AND OTHERS

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 316
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1790/2018

The applications for leave to appeal are dismissed because the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate a reasonable prospect of success on the asserted grounds (guarantees, pleadings, documentary evidence), and their procedural conduct (late and unclear amended notices of appeal) was unsatisfactory, justifying an order for indemnity costs.
3 Jun 2020

DING HUIRONG v. CHINA TIMES SECURITIES LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 978
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA365/2018

The court held that the 5% reduction in the costs order nisi already accounted for the plaintiff's partial failure on the Order 14 application; the affidavits and preparatory work were relevant to the Order 14A issue so costs should not be split or reserved, and the applications to vary the costs order nisi were dismissed and the order nisi made absolute with costs to the plaintiff.
3 Apr 2019

QANTEX CAPITAL MARKETS LTD v. NANAKO YABE

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 880
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA757/2018

Because the defendants' affirmations and draft defences raised clear triable factual issues intertwined with questions of construction, summary judgment and Order 14A determination were inappropriate; the plaintiff proceeded recklessly after those materials were filed and must bear the costs consequences, so the costs order nisi was varied to award indemnity costs for the period after 30 July 2018, refuse a certificate for two counsel and direct summary assessment on paper with a timetable for filing and objections.