Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Order 14a summary determination

Legal area

Court

23 Jun 2025

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

Citation

[2025] HKCFA 13
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FAMV178/2024

The Court granted leave to appeal because the questions raised are of great general or public importance and the outcome of the appeal turns on whether a corporate plaintiff can pursue the tort of harassment, whether it can act as representative with the 'same interest' under Order 15 Rule 12, and whether a court can grant a free‑standing injunction to a corporate plaintiff lacking a cause of action; these issues warrant authoritative determination by the Court of Final Appeal.
10 Jul 2023

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

Citation

[2023] HKCA 841
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV48/2021

The Court allowed the appeal in part: it upheld the Recorder's construction that the inner structural part of the slab is a common part, but set aside the summary declarations and the part of the costs order awarding costs of the action because the declarations were discretionary, would not serve any useful purpose before trial given triable issues as to causation and extent of damage, and thus were inappropriate on an Order 14A determination; costs of the action could not properly be awarded where the action was not finally disposed of.
25 Aug 2022

AFH HONG KONG STORES, LTD v. FULTON CORPORATION LTD

Citation

[2022] HKCA 1243
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV201/2021

SC(13) Part [1] ('bare shell' condition on each floor) requires the tenant to return the structural frame of each demised floor, which includes reinstatement of entirely or partly demolished floors absent a valid Part [2] notice; Part [2] requires a specific 9 months' prior written notice by the landlord to require leaving or removal of particular items; the three landlord letters did not constitute valid Part [2] notices; appeal allowed in part, lower court orders set aside and matter remitted for trial on outstanding issues.
30 Jul 2021

STAR WIN ENTERPRISES LTD v. THE ONE PROPERTY LTD (formerly known as CHINESE ESTATES (THE ONE) LTD)

Citation

[2021] HKDC 922
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ4810/2020

The Order 14A application was dismissed because the court did not have the necessary factual matrix to fairly construe Clause 8 or to imply terms or resolve alleged partial frustration; the partial frustration question was drafted unclearly; there were triable issues including possible abuse of process (Henderson) and voluntariness of payments, so even if legal questions were decided for the plaintiff a trial would still be necessary; accordingly the court declined to exercise its residual discretion to determine the questions summarily.
8 Jan 2021

熊锦丽對梁偉棠

Citation

[2021] HKDC 14
Court

District Court
Case number

DCMP331/2018

The court accepted the documentary and administrative evidence establishing Tang Fa Wui as a tso regulated under the New Territories Ordinance and, on the uncontroverted evidential foundation provided by the plaintiff, found that limitation had not extinguished the tso's and the plaintiff's right to recover the land; the Second Defendant failed to adduce any expert/customary law evidence or other rebuttal and therefore could not establish adverse possession or any equitable defence; summary determination under Order 14A was therefore appropriate and judgment for vacant possession, mesne profi…
4 Mar 2020

LAM TAK CHOI v. CHOW TAI FOOK JEWELLERY CO LTD

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 362
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2481/2015

The Order 14A application was dismissed because the legal question cannot be determined without resolving disputed factual matters and assessing public policy and the seriousness of alleged breaches affecting public safety; the necessary factual matrix was not established for a final summary determination and the court must hear the evidence at trial; costs ordered against the plaintiff.
26 Feb 2019

IP WAN FAT AND OTHERS v. KING UNION INTERNATIONAL INVESTMENTS LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2019] HKCA 226
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV542/2018

The Order 14A summons was rightly dismissed because the boundary dispute raised factual issues (including the accuracy and relevance of competing plans) that required expert and viva voce evidence and could not be resolved summarily; the defendants' proposed grounds of appeal had no reasonable prospect of success; accordingly leave to appeal was refused and the appeal was struck out.
27 Apr 2018

IP WAN FAT AND OTHERS v. KING UNION INTERNATIONAL INVESTMENTS LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 906
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA240/2016

The Recorder allowed the amendment to paragraph 1 to frame the Question about the true construction of the 10 March 1992 assignment because the issue plainly arose, but because the plaintiffs had not had adequate opportunity to file evidence on that specific Question the court ordered staged filing of further affidavits and refixed the matter for hearing; costs reserved.
5 Jul 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 appeal is allowed and the master's order is set aside because the O.14A procedure was misused to decide fact‑sensitive issues; identity of purchaser and which party repudiated the PSPA are disputed factual questions that must be determined before legal consequences such as forfeiture or liquidated damages can be decided.
11 May 2015

SINA HONG KONG LTD v. PIXEL MEDIA HK LTD

Citation

SINA HONG KONG LTD v. PIXEL MEDIA HK LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1400/2013

On a proper construction of the site performance clause the monthly pageview metrics must be based on third‑party site traffic verification software (Nielsen or an industry recognised equivalent) and the defendant is contractually entitled to appoint independent auditors to give a second opinion on page views and unique users at its own expense; the Order 14A determination was appropriate and the appeal is dismissed save that the master’s order is varied to include that determination.