Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Order 14a determination

Legal area

Court

10 Apr 2026

LEUNG SAU KUEN v. ALLIANCE SECURITY LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2026] HKDC 640
Court

District Court
Case number

DCPI2735/2022

The court dismissed the Order 14A application because D2's question was not a pure question of law but inextricably interwoven with disputed factual issues central to the statutory standards of 'reasonable' and 'reasonably practicable', and because determination would not produce substantial saving in time or costs; the court exercised its discretion against engaging the O.14A procedure given the impending trial and outstanding factual disputes.
29 Dec 2023

HAVEAUX XAVIER MARIE-GHISLAIN v. HONG KONG EXPRESS AIRWAYS LTD

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 3073
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1631/2021

Leave to adduce the expert report was refused because the proposed expert evidence would not assist the court in resolving the legal consequences of the termination: the employment was terminated by payment in lieu in accordance with the contract and the Employment Ordinance, and alleged fabrication or bad faith in the investigatory process would not alter the legal consequence or increase recoverable damages beyond what is payable on lawful termination; therefore the expert evidence was irrelevant and appropriately excluded at the interlocutory stage as a case management decision.
31 May 2023

SIR ELLY KADOORIE & SONS LTD (FOR AND ON BEHALF OF ITSELF, ITS CURRENT AND FORMER OFFICERS, EMPLOYEES AND AGENTS, INCLUDING ITS LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES, MESSRS SIMMONS & SIMMONS) v. SAMANTHA JANE BRADLEY

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 1478
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA518/2022

A corporate entity cannot be a victim of the common law tort of harassment because the tort requires worry, emotional distress or annoyance which can only be suffered by natural persons; therefore the corporate plaintiff had no cause of action and could not satisfy the 'same interest' requirement to bring a representative action on behalf of its employees or agents, and the claim was struck out.
23 Apr 2021

HO SUEN CHANG v. HO HIN CHEUNG

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 1132
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1670/2015

The court struck out parts of the RDCCC: (a) claims for accounts in respect of FWS and 430A rents and sale proceeds and all account claims arising before 9 July 2009 because the plaintiff’s case conceded concurrent legal and equitable rights so the six year limitation applied and those causes of action fell outside the limitation period; (b) the Account Counterclaim was struck out for lack of locus insofar as it sought the Executor to sue himself; and (c) allegations relating to Lap Kee Property were struck out as conceded. The Adjusted Relevant Date is 9.7.2009 and costs awarded to Defendant…
26 Mar 2021

DING HUIRONG v. CHINA TIMES SECURITIES LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2021] HKCA 419
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV122/2020

The Agreement was properly characterised as a loan secured by a security interest in the pledged shares; accordingly the equitable doctrine of the equity of redemption applied and contractual provisions purporting to waive or extinguish the mortgagor's right to surplus proceeds or to prevent redemption were clogs and invalid; the Order 14A determination was properly entertained given the plaintiff's adoption of the Agreement and undertakings, and the appeals were dismissed.
8 Oct 2020

LEE SEE WOO v. CHU HONG PONG

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 2569
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2537/2018

The action was struck out because the malicious prosecution claim failed as a matter of law and pleading: the principal heads of loss claimed were either irrecoverable (additional legal costs awarded in prior proceedings) or plainly not caused by the alleged malicious prosecution (loss of shares and related restoration costs stemmed from earlier transfers independent of the HCMP proceedings); the abuse of process claim failed for lack of a pleaded predominant extraneous purpose and for lack of viable loss causation; the court declined to make an Order 14A determination on the emergent issue o…
22 May 2020

GEORGE Y. C. MOK & CO. (a firm) v. NEW LAND PROPERTIES DEVELOPMENT LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2020] HKDC 240
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ505/2019

Because the claim concerned non-contentious work, section 56(3) LPO requires any agreement as to solicitor's remuneration to be in writing and signed by the person to be bound; the So Lung Letter did not meet that requirement and the plaintiff could not rely on the alleged oral agreement, so the claim must be dismissed.
30 Sept 2019

XU YI JUN v. GF CAPITAL (HONG KONG) LTD

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 2410
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2563/2017

The court upheld the Master’s determinations: Clause 6 must be construed so that the forfeiture in the final sentence applies only if the relevant event (voluntary termination without cause or a finding of gross misconduct) occurs before the Due Date; the 2016 Guaranteed Bonus is a statutory end of year payment and the forfeiture provision is void under section 70 of the Employment Ordinance; however defendant has raised an arguable equitable set-off defence so it is entitled to unconditional leave to defend; both parties' appeals dismissed and no costs ordered.
3 Apr 2019

QANTEX CAPITAL MARKETS LTD v. VITIELLO THOMAS XAVIER

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 880
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA755/2018

Because triable factual issues were clearly raised after the employees filed affirmations in opposition, the plaintiff unreasonably continued the summary judgment/determination application; therefore the order nisi was varied so that the employees' costs of the Summons incurred after 30 July 2018 are payable by the plaintiff on an indemnity basis, the certificate for counsel remains for one counsel only, and the employees' costs are to be summarily assessed on paper.
3 Apr 2019

QANTEX CAPITAL MARKETS LTD v. DIMITRI PHILIPPIDES

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 880
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA752/2018

Given the defendants' affidavits and draft defences raised triable issues and factual disputes intertwined with questions of construction, the plaintiff's decision to continue the summary judgment/Order 14A application after the defendants' evidence justified a costs order variation: costs of the Summons incurred by the Employees after 30 July 2018 are to be paid by QC on an indemnity basis; the certificate for counsel remains for one counsel only; and the Employees' costs are to be summarily assessed on paper with directions for filing and objection.