Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Order 45 rule 11

Legal area

Court

2 May 2025

FU TAT CREDIT LTD v. LAU YUNG TAI by his guardian ad litem LAU VACO AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 1847
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1759/2012

The summonses for stay of execution were dismissed because the applicant relied on the wrong statutory rule (Order 45 r11) and, on the correct basis (Order 59 r13), he has no arguable appeal: the procedural complaint was addressed at trial by adjournment and appointment of a guardian ad litem and the trial judge's primary findings that the transactions were for Father's benefit and that consent was freely given were supported by evidence and not plainly wrong; therefore no exercise of discretion to grant a stay was justified.
2 May 2025

HUI MEI CHING trading as DIAMOND DRAGON FINANCE COMPANY v. LAU YUNG TAI by his guardian ad litem LAU VACO AND OTHERS

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 1847
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1905/2013

The Summonses were dismissed because Order 45 r 11 was inapplicable (no new matters since judgment) and Father had no arguable appeal under Order 59 r 13—the procedural fairness claim was unfounded on the trial record and the undue influence grounds amounted to impermissible challenges to primary findings of fact which are not reasonably open to reversal; accordingly the court declined to exercise its discretion to grant a stay.
12 Apr 2023

MARK RICHARD CHARLTON SUTHERLAND v. CRB (a firm)

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 960
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP2285/2019

The summonses were dismissed because the matters relied upon were not new developments affecting the validity of the judgment and therefore did not attract jurisdiction under Order 45 r 11; the inherent jurisdiction was not engaged; no error was shown in the summary assessment of costs and the costs order nisi was made absolute; in view of the applicant's conduct indemnity costs were ordered for the summonses.
30 Jan 2015

律政司司長對朱國興

Citation

律政司司長對朱國興
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1310/2012

The application was refused because the defendant's assertions were re‑statements of arguments previously rejected and did not constitute matters arising after the November 21, 2013 judgment that would invalidate it; the proper mechanism for stay pending appeal against a different judgment is Order 59 r13; the defendant's application was therefore outside the scope of Order 45 r11 and amounted to delay, justifying refusal.
21 Jul 2014

CHINA CITIC BANK INTERNATIONAL LTD v. DURRANT SIMON PARTRICK MICHAEL

Citation

CHINA CITIC BANK INTERNATIONAL LTD v. DURRANT SIMON PARTRICK MICHAEL
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV127/2014

The summons for stay was dismissed because the defendant's appeal lacked sufficient merit to constitute a 'strong appeal', the defendant admitted default so alleged accounting errors would not defeat entitlement to possession, the subsequent affidavit evidence did not constitute new evidence invalidating the Order 88 judgment, and Order 47 rule 1 does not prevent enforcement of the possession order; accordingly no proper basis existed to stay execution.
2 Feb 2005

THE DAIWA BANK, LTD v. SHUM SHEK CHIU t/a LUNG TAT CO AND ANOTHER

Citation

THE DAIWA BANK, LTD v. SHUM SHEK CHIU t/a LUNG TAT CO AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP4020/2000

The 2000 Order was valid and binding, the substituted plaintiff was entitled to enforce it by writ of possession and fieri facias; Order 88 applied because the claim was based on the Legal Charge and the 2nd defendant was a mortgagor and principal debtor; relief under Order 45 r11 was not available because the matters relied on occurred before the 2000 Order; accordingly the summons to discharge or stay the writ failed and the appeal was dismissed with costs on an indemnity basis.
27 Nov 2003

FRIENDO INCORPORATED v. COSMOS MANOR DEVELOPMENT LTD

Citation

FRIENDO INCORPORATED v. COSMOS MANOR DEVELOPMENT LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1661/2003

The summons was dismissed because the applicant filed no affidavit demonstrating matters arising since the judgment to justify a stay under Order 45 r11, and because an Order staying the 7 November 2003 judgment would not prevent enforcement of the separate possession order nor enable the non-party applicant to remain in occupation; accordingly there was no basis for a stay under Order 59 r13 or for an interim stay.
21 Oct 2003

TONG HOK TAK, DAFFY AND OTHERS v. BEVERLY CONSULTANTS LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

TONG HOK TAK, DAFFY AND OTHERS v. BEVERLY CONSULTANTS LTD AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2617/2003

The summons was dismissed because the BVI legal opinions, although dated after 1 August 2003, did not constitute matters occurring since the order that went to the validity of the Order as required by Order 45 r11; furthermore discretionary factors — imminent appeal hearing, absence of explanation for not producing the opinions earlier, and that the defendants' objections related to implementation rather than substance — warranted refusing a stay.
4 Jun 1999

WELLSTECH INTERNATIONAL LTD. v. EARNTRUTH LTD.

Citation

WELLSTECH INTERNATIONAL LTD. v. EARNTRUTH LTD.
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA21682/1998

The application was dismissed because the evidence and matters advanced did not fall within O.45 r.11; the rule is confined to matters occurring since the judgment that go to the judgment's validity, and those requirements were not met here, so the court had no jurisdiction to grant the stay.
11 Jan 1999

CHINA VEST II-A L.P. v. CHAN KUENG UN ROY

Citation

CHINA VEST II-A L.P. v. CHAN KUENG UN ROY
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA8546/1997

Ord.45 r.11 requires matters since the judgment that affect the judgment\'s validity; the defendant\'s grounds did not relate to validity, so the court\'s discretion under Ord.45 r.11 was not engaged and the refusal to grant a stay was correct; appeal dismissed.