Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Order 28 rule 4

Legal area

Court

12 Sept 2025

NEW SPARKLE ROLL INTERNATIONAL GROUP LTD v. ZHENG HAO JIANG AND OTHERS

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 4214
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP792/2024

The court converted §2 of the originating summons to proceed as if begun by writ because the allegations of dishonesty raised substantial factual disputes requiring pleadings and discovery to delineate the ambit of the parties' cases and ensure fairness; discovery and pleadings outweigh the efficiency argument for summary disposal, and affidavits on file will stand as witness statements with permitted supplementation.
4 Oct 2018

YOE HAN YAUW v. YOE HAN HIAN AND OTHERS

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 2369
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP85/2018

The court held the central issue—the existence of the alleged oral agreement—was disputed and concerned credibility; therefore the matter could not be determined on the papers and must proceed to a substantive hearing with viva voce evidence under Order 28 rule 4, with directions for filing evidence and trial preparation.
9 May 2016

北京旭阳伟业煤焦化工有限公司 v. HIMADRI CHEMICALS & INDUSTRIES LTD

Citation

北京旭阳伟业煤焦化工有限公司 v. HIMADRI CHEMICALS & INDUSTRIES LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP3305/2013

The court exercised its discretion under Order 28 r 4 treating the summons as a case management hearing; the defendants achieved only limited success; indemnity costs were inappropriate; the 2nd defendant made no independent contribution so separate recovery for the three subsequent hearings was not justified; consequentially the costs order nisi was varied to specify dates and allocate costs as set out in the orders to do justice between the parties.

Hong Kong Case Law

NEW SPARKLE ROLL INTERNATIONAL GROUP LTD v. ZHENG HAO JIANG AND OTHERS

YOE HAN YAUW v. YOE HAN HIAN AND OTHERS

北京旭阳伟业煤焦化工有限公司 v. HIMADRI CHEMICALS & INDUSTRIES LTD