Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Order 14 applications

Legal area

Court

8 Oct 2008

PACIFIC ELECTRIC WIRE & CABLE CO LTD v. TEXAN MANAGEMENT LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

PACIFIC ELECTRIC WIRE & CABLE CO LTD v. TEXAN MANAGEMENT LTD AND OTHERS
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV210/2008

The single judge dismissed the summonses because (1) under s.35(3) HCO a single judge cannot discharge or vary another single judge's order and (2) the applications were an abuse of process since appellants sought relief already considered and refused by an appellate judge and no new circumstances justified revisiting that decision; accordingly interim stays were refused and costs awarded to the plaintiff.
8 Oct 2008

PACIFIC ELECTRIC WIRE & CABLE CO LTD v. HARMUTTY LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

PACIFIC ELECTRIC WIRE & CABLE CO LTD v. HARMUTTY LTD AND OTHERS
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV212/2008

The single judge dismissed the summonses because (1) under s.35(3) HCO a single judge of the Court of Appeal has no jurisdiction to discharge or vary an order of another single judge; and (2) the applications were an abuse of process since they effectively sought relief on the identical issue already decided by an appellate judge (Rogers V-P) with no change of circumstances; accordingly interim stays were refused and costs awarded to the plaintiff.
21 Apr 2008

CAPCOM CO LTD AND ANOTHER v. PIONEER TECHNOLOGIES LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

CAPCOM CO LTD AND ANOTHER v. PIONEER TECHNOLOGIES LTD AND ANOTHER
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ2655/2007

The application for leave to appeal was dismissed because the judge correctly applied the liberal meaning of 'criticism or review', concluded Pioneer had an arguable fair dealing defence requiring trial on disputed facts, and Capcom had no realistic prospect of success on the grounds advanced.
30 Aug 2007

WISON (SHANGHAI) CHEMICAL ENGINEERING CO LTD v. SIMMONS & SIMMONS (a firm)

Citation

WISON (SHANGHAI) CHEMICAL ENGINEERING CO LTD v. SIMMONS & SIMMONS (a firm)
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP664/2007

The court granted the requested clarification to amend paragraph 5 of the 13 July 2007 order because the plaintiff's later pleading of fraud was an unforeseen change of circumstances that could not reasonably have been provided for in the original order; the clarification is appropriate and the defendant should not bear blame for the change; accordingly the security for costs summons is adjourned sine die with liberty to restore (without the previously stated Order 14 pre-condition) and there is no order as to costs for the hearing.
19 Jul 2001

HOLAKE (HONG KONG) LTD. v. HOLIDAY RESORTS (MANAGEMENT) CO. LTD.

Citation

HOLAKE (HONG KONG) LTD. v. HOLIDAY RESORTS (MANAGEMENT) CO. LTD.
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV410/2001

The Court held that the third party's pleaded defences were fundamentally defective for lack of particulars (in particular allegations of wilful negligence and dishonest misconduct) and, on the materials before the Court, there was no sustainable defence to the defendant's claim; s20A did not apply to the lift contract and the defendant was entitled to costs up to a reasonable period after disclosure of the contract (treated as 1 January) with ordinary costs consequences thereafter.
5 Oct 1999

INTERFORM (INTERIOR & MARBLE) CO., LTD. v. FAR EAST WAGNER CONSTRUCTION LTD.

Citation

INTERFORM (INTERIOR & MARBLE) CO., LTD. v. FAR EAST WAGNER CONSTRUCTION LTD.
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV59/1999

The Court refused leave to appeal because the application was interlocutory (supported by the existence of an outstanding counterclaim) and did not raise a question of great general or public importance under s.22(1)(b); additionally, on an Order 14 summons a defendant is required to verify the facts it relies on by affidavit and is bound by any omissions in that affidavit absent an adjournment to file further evidence.
27 Jul 1999

LAU KWONG HING t/a RODS LEATHER CO v. LUK CHI KEUNG AND ANOTHER

Citation

LAU KWONG HING t/a RODS LEATHER CO v. LUK CHI KEUNG AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2231/1995

The Master's dismissal was correct because the plaintiff alone decides whom to sue, issues of correct party identity and trading name are matters for trial rather than interlocutory correction, the 1st Defendant lacked proper standing to seek deletion of the 2nd Defendant's name (who had already unsuccessfully applied), therefore the 1st Defendant's summons had no merit and the appeal must be dismissed with costs.

Hong Kong Case Law

PACIFIC ELECTRIC WIRE & CABLE CO LTD v. TEXAN MANAGEMENT LTD AND OTHERS

PACIFIC ELECTRIC WIRE & CABLE CO LTD v. HARMUTTY LTD AND OTHERS

CAPCOM CO LTD AND ANOTHER v. PIONEER TECHNOLOGIES LTD AND ANOTHER

WISON (SHANGHAI) CHEMICAL ENGINEERING CO LTD v. SIMMONS & SIMMONS (a firm)

HOLAKE (HONG KONG) LTD. v. HOLIDAY RESORTS (MANAGEMENT) CO. LTD.

INTERFORM (INTERIOR & MARBLE) CO., LTD. v. FAR EAST WAGNER CONSTRUCTION LTD.

LAU KWONG HING t/a RODS LEATHER CO v. LUK CHI KEUNG AND ANOTHER