Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Order 32 rule 5

Legal area

Court

20 Jun 2025

HANG HEUNG CAKE SHOP COMPANY LTD v. TSOI CHIK SANG LAWRENCE AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 2634
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1327/2013

The 5 May 2025 letter amounted to a valid acceptance of the Sanctioned Offer under Order 22 rule 12 because acceptance occurs on service of notice; the procedural filing requirement in Order 22 rule 16 does not negate that acceptance; alleged misrepresentation or undue influence by a third party did not invalidate the acceptance as there was no agency or knowledge by HHCS; challenges to HHCS's authority and to champerty were without merit; accordingly the settlement was effective, the consolidation summonses were dismissed and costs were awarded to the respondents on an indemnity basis.
20 Nov 2014

LEUNG KWAI LING AND ANOTHER v. MA HO FAI AND ANOTHER

Citation

LEUNG KWAI LING AND ANOTHER v. MA HO FAI AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1225/2013

The application was dismissed because the plaintiffs had already lodged an appeal which removed the court's jurisdiction to entertain the application in respect of the perfected order; O 32 r 5(3) did not permit rehearing and O 32 r 5(4) could not be used to restore the defendants' summons; additionally, the applicant failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for his absence, so the application had no merit.
16 Oct 2008

LAM PING v. LAM MAN KAI

Citation

LAM PING v. LAM MAN KAI
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ5522/2002

The appeal was dismissed for the appellant's absence pursuant to Order 32, Rule 5; costs awarded to the plaintiff to be paid by the appellant and taxed if not agreed.
9 Nov 2005

BANCA INTESA S.p.A. HONG KONG BRANCH v. YAO CHUAN RUI

Citation

BANCA INTESA S.p.A. HONG KONG BRANCH v. YAO CHUAN RUI
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA143/2005

The court dismissed Forward Industry Limited's summons for want of jurisdiction and dismissed Yao Chuan Rui's summons for lack of reasonable grounds; the court refused to accept an informal letter as sufficient reason for absence, proceeded to hear the summonses under Order 32 Rule 5(1), and ordered costs against both defendants.
9 Nov 2005

BANCA INTESA S.p.A. HONG KONG BRANCH v. FORWARD INDUSTRY LTD

Citation

BANCA INTESA S.p.A. HONG KONG BRANCH v. FORWARD INDUSTRY LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1222/2004

The court dismissed both summonses: the summons by Forward Industry was dismissed for want of jurisdiction (the court proceeded under Order 32, Rule 5(1) but concluded it had no jurisdiction to grant the relief) and the summons by Mr Yao was dismissed because no reasonable ground or adequate explanation for his absence was advanced; costs were ordered against both defendants in favour of the plaintiff.
4 Sept 2001

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. LAM CHI BIN STANLEY

Citation

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. LAM CHI BIN STANLEY
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA148/2001

Order 14 rule 11 governs the application to set aside the perfected summary judgment; the defendant failed to show any defence with a real prospect of success or even a bona fide defence because his own pleadings and evidence were inconsistent and insufficient to prove non‑liability or an agreed transfer of tenancy to his company; summary judgment therefore stands and the appeal is dismissed.

Hong Kong Case Law

HANG HEUNG CAKE SHOP COMPANY LTD v. TSOI CHIK SANG LAWRENCE AND ANOTHER

LEUNG KWAI LING AND ANOTHER v. MA HO FAI AND ANOTHER

LAM PING v. LAM MAN KAI

BANCA INTESA S.p.A. HONG KONG BRANCH v. YAO CHUAN RUI

BANCA INTESA S.p.A. HONG KONG BRANCH v. FORWARD INDUSTRY LTD

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. LAM CHI BIN STANLEY