Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Order 29

Legal area

Court

11 Apr 2022

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

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 1028
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCT18/2020

Leave to appeal was refused because the proposed grounds lacked a reasonable prospect of success: the interlocutory injunction was granted on its merits (undertakings addressed only the stay), the judge did not err in treating the plaintiff as the practical winner for costs purposes and in exercising discretion to award costs subject to a modest deduction, and the Order 14 application being unsuccessful did not demonstrate impropriety warranting reversal of the costs order.
16 Sept 2009

CHAK YUET CHING v. LIN SHU MAN

Citation

CHAK YUET CHING v. LIN SHU MAN
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV174/2009

The Court of Appeal held the judge fell into error by ordering costs against a party who successfully obtained judgment on liability under Order 14, having misconceived key facts (including the defendant's admissions and undertakings), and the order made on 7 May was therefore wrong and must be set aside.
5 Sept 2005

CHINA KING PROPERTIES LTD v. THE OCCUPIERS OF THE SAID LAND AND ANOTHER

Citation

CHINA KING PROPERTIES LTD v. THE OCCUPIERS OF THE SAID LAND AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1020/2002

The appeal was dismissed because the counterclaim alleging harassment and consequential loss was insufficiently particularised and unsupported by evidence such that it could not displace the Master's discretionary order requiring interim payments into court as security for rental and potential damages; there was also no evidence of plaintiff impecuniosity to vary the order.
3 May 2002

CLYDE & CO (a firm) v. MARANTA ENTERPRISES LTD.

Citation

CLYDE & CO (a firm) v. MARANTA ENTERPRISES LTD.
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA752/2002

Bills were referred to taxation under section 67(2) and the court, exercising its unfettered discretion under s67(2) and its procedural powers, imposed terms: defendant must reimburse disbursements paid to counsel and experts within 28 days and must either pay into court 60% of the remainder of the bills within 28 days or provide a satisfactory bank guarantee; disbursements to counsel/experts are excluded from taxation; bills were held to have been delivered to the related company acting as agent.
24 Sept 1999

WAI SHUN CONSTRUCTION CO. LTD. v. GAMMON CONSTRUCTION LTD.

Citation

WAI SHUN CONSTRUCTION CO. LTD. v. GAMMON CONSTRUCTION LTD.
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCT7/1999

The court held that while the defendant had genuinely arguable cross-claims totalling just under $3.3 million, the defendant had no genuinely arguable set-off in respect of the $3,157,581.73 claimed by Shun Cheong; accordingly more than $3 million of the plaintiff's claim was unchallenged and an interim payment of $3,000,000 should be made to the plaintiff, with costs to follow the event.
22 Oct 1996

WING TAK TRANSPORTATION CO LTD v. MAK CHAN YUK AND ANOTHER

Citation

WING TAK TRANSPORTATION CO LTD v. MAK CHAN YUK AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA4544/1996

Interim payment was refused because there were substantial and arguable defences (an arguable binding settlement suspending rent, the applicability of the cesser clause and plausible counterclaims for damages and exclusion issues) such that the court was not satisfied the defendant would recover the substantial sum claimed at trial.
12 Dec 1995

D MONDO LIMITED v. YAU CHIU WING also known as EDMUND YAU AND ANOTHER

Citation

D MONDO LIMITED v. YAU CHIU WING also known as EDMUND YAU AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCT18/1994

The judge found that, after accepting the contract price and admitted extras, and without resolving arguable defendant counterclaims at this interlocutory stage, there remained an undisputed balance of $146,783.31; accordingly an interim payment under Order 29 was ordered for that sum with interest at 10% from 19 November 1993 to the date of judgment and costs nisi for the plaintiff.
4 Apr 1995

LAU ONG UI v. LAU CHI HUNG and Others

Citation

LAU ONG UI v. LAU CHI HUNG and Others
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2289/1992

Given the forensic reports indicating a common source and the suspicious timing and manner of production of the documents by the defendants, and absent any substantive reason to refuse, the court exercised its power under Order 29 and its inherent jurisdiction to order production of the originals for forensic examination and then lodgement with the court to ensure the ends of justice.