Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Order 58 appeals

Legal area

Court

19 May 2023

PACIFIC ACE FINANCE LTD v. VILLASFER, ROSALINA J. AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2023] HKDC 611
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ3299/2018

Appeals dismissed: the District Court was the proper venue because the SCTO Schedule excludes money lender recovery actions; the pleaded interest rates and allegations of illegality were arguable and raised disputed facts suitable for trial rather than summary determination; summary dismissal was therefore inappropriate; Master Chan's costs orders were within discretionary norms and should not be disturbed, so costs of the appeals are payable by the appellant.
31 Mar 2021

GIANT HARVEST LTD v. NAN HAI CORPORATION LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 870
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2632/2018

The appeal and the two New Evidence Summonses were dismissed because the proposed expert evidence was not necessary or sufficiently probative: the issues were primarily contractual construction and ascertainable facts or speculative contingent liabilities; the Ladd v Marshall requirements for new evidence on appeal were not met; admitting the evidence would cause unnecessary complication and waste; accordingly leave to adduce the expert evidence was refused and costs awarded to the successful parties.
2 Apr 2020

STRAIGHT WAY GROUP LTD v. DAYTON INDUSTRIAL CO LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 560
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1754/2017

The appeal is dismissed because the plaintiff's amended statement of claim and affidavit material advanced allegations of fraudulent misrepresentation and willful concealment such that the fraud exception to Order 14 is engaged and the Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the summary judgment application; alternatively, even absent the fraud exception, there are substantial triable issues and disputed contemporaneous documents making summary judgment inappropriate. The application to admit Davies 3 failed the Ladd v Marshall criteria and the Amendment Summons is dismissed.
26 Oct 2004

BANK OF CHINA (HONG KONG) LTD v. VILLA KING ENTERPRISES LTD

Citation

BANK OF CHINA (HONG KONG) LTD v. VILLA KING ENTERPRISES LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP5727/1999

The application was dismissed because either it was an out‑of‑time appeal under Order 58 or, if purporting to be a review under Order 62 rule 35, the judge lacked jurisdiction as no request for reasons under rule 34(4) had been made; additionally, on the merits the taxing master had properly exercised her function and her assessment was sustained.

Hong Kong Case Law

PACIFIC ACE FINANCE LTD v. VILLASFER, ROSALINA J. AND ANOTHER

GIANT HARVEST LTD v. NAN HAI CORPORATION LTD AND ANOTHER

STRAIGHT WAY GROUP LTD v. DAYTON INDUSTRIAL CO LTD AND ANOTHER

BANK OF CHINA (HONG KONG) LTD v. VILLA KING ENTERPRISES LTD