Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Order 14a procedure

Legal area

Court

26 Mar 2021

DING HUIRONG v. CHINA TIMES SECURITIES LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2021] HKCA 419
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV112/2020

The agreement, read as a whole, manifested a loan and security arrangement (promissory note obligations, interest provisions, pledge/Collateral Agency/Pledge Agreements, perfection and remedies on default); accordingly the equity of redemption applied and contractual provisions purporting to extinguish or waive the mortgagor's equitable right (eg clauses exempting lender from accounting for surplus/providing no right of redemption) were invalid as clogs; further, given the plaintiff's adoption of the Agreement and undertakings, the Court properly entertained the Order 14A issue; the Judge's d…
6 Aug 2020

TSANG GRACE YEE MAN also known as GRACE YEE MAN TSANG EBTEHADJ v. TSANG WILLY

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 1909
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAP17/2018

The court exercised its discretion on interlocutory costs: although there was non-disclosure by the defendant, the Order 14A application did not achieve the objective of accelerating final disposal and thus the original costs order nisi was varied so that the defendant recovers costs of the Order 14A application, while costs of the present variation application are awarded to the defendant in the cause.
12 Mar 2020

DING HUIRONG v. CHINA TIMES SECURITIES LTD

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 376
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA365/2018

The Adam Loan Agreement and Collateral Agency Agreement, read as a whole, constituted a secured loan with the plaintiff retaining beneficial ownership and an equity of redemption; clauses purporting to waive or extinguish that equity (including provisions purporting to deny redemption or to allow retention of entire proceeds without obligation) are unlawful clogs and void; the legal question of construction was suitable for determination under Order 14A despite other factual disputes because the facts necessary to decide the legal issue were before the court.
25 Oct 2016

POZDNYAEV, DENIS AND ANOTHER v. KINVAST LTD

Citation

POZDNYAEV, DENIS AND ANOTHER v. KINVAST LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1808/2014

The defendant succeeded on appeal so costs should follow the event; the plaintiffs failed to discharge the burden of showing exceptional circumstances to displace that rule; the application for certification of two counsel was refused because two counsel were not necessary and the fees would be disproportionate to the $2,000,000 claim; the order nisi was varied only to include costs reserved by Master Hui on 16 April 2015; no order as to costs on the competing summonses since neither party succeeded in substance.
6 Nov 2015

CHAK CHOI KWAN v. DAISY LAI AND OTHERS

Citation

CHAK CHOI KWAN v. DAISY LAI AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1241/2015

The Exhibit Summons failed because the issues raised (authenticity of the Exhibit, receipt and alleged destruction of the IERF documents) were factual and contested; they were unsuitable for determination under Order 14A and for summary interlocutory relief or impounding under s78 on the available affirmation evidence. The appropriate course is to ventilate those disputes at the substantive hearings (security for costs and appeal), so the Exhibit Summons is dismissed and costs follow.
19 Jan 2015

JADE’S REALM LTD v. DIRECTOR OF LANDS for and on behalf of THE GOVERNMENT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

Citation

JADE’S REALM LTD v. DIRECTOR OF LANDS for and on behalf of THE GOVERNMENT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1509/2012

The court refused to strike out paragraph 12(2)(e) because the 99‑year term argument was not obviously unsustainable and therefore did not meet the high striking‑out threshold; the O14A application was dismissed because RHC O77 r7(1)(c) bars Order 14A applications against the Crown/HKSAR and, alternatively, the Two Questions were unsuitable for determination by O14A given disputed material facts and because such a determination would not finally resolve the action.
7 May 2013

UES INTERNATIONAL (HK) LTD v. MARITIMA MARUBA S.A.

Citation

UES INTERNATIONAL (HK) LTD v. MARITIMA MARUBA S.A. <br>
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA632/2011

The court dismissed the Order 14A summons because the issues could not be resolved on the contractual documents alone given disputed factual matrix, there was no clear express extinguishment of rights by the Creditors Agreement, and no sufficient saving of time or costs to justify determination at this interlocutory stage; accordingly the application was refused and the summons dismissed with costs to UES.
19 Mar 2012

CHINA PING AN INSURANCE (HONG KONG) CO LTD v. TSANG FUNG YIN JOSEPHINE AND ANOTHER

Citation

CHINA PING AN INSURANCE (HONG KONG) CO LTD v. TSANG FUNG YIN JOSEPHINE AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA308/2010

The court held that on the proper construction of the Proposal and Cover Note in their factual matrix the plaintiff's usual policy terms (including general condition 18(b) and clause 14) were incorporated into the interim contract; however whether the 1st Defendant breached general condition 18(b) raised contested facts (notice, agency of Sun Wah, and timeliness) and thus could not be resolved under Order 14A; the master's order was set aside and the 1st Defendant's application dismissed so the plaintiff can pursue the factual issues at trial.
29 May 2009

NG YEE WAH v. LAM CHUN WAH AND ANOTHER

Citation

NG YEE WAH v. LAM CHUN WAH AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV309/2008

The Court held the Order 14A decision was a procedural/interlocutory determination and not a final adjudication of property or civil rights; accordingly it did not meet the s.22(1)(a) financial threshold for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal, and the application for leave was dismissed.
12 May 2009

RAYMOND CHU & CO v. KWOK CHIN WING

Citation

RAYMOND CHU & CO v. KWOK CHIN WING
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA98/2008

The court held that, under ss.58,60,63 and 66 of the Legal Practitioners Ordinance, the plaintiff (Raymond Chu & Co.) is precluded from recovering fees on the basis of an alleged oral fixed fee agreement and must first deliver properly itemised bills which the defendant may have taxed; Order 14A was an appropriate procedure to determine that legal question and the court consequently made directions for delivery of documents and bills and awarded costs of the summons to the defendant.