Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Party status

Legal area

Court

13 Dec 2023

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. PERSONS CONDUCTING THEMSELVES IN ANY OF THE ACTS PROHIBITED UNDER PARAGRAPH 1(a), (b), (c) OR (d) OF THE INDORSEMENT OF CLAIM

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 3240
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA855/2023

Leave to appeal was dismissed because the proposed grounds were repetitive, did not demonstrate a reasonable prospect of success or error in the Court's prior analysis, the applicant refused to seek joinder (the appropriate remedy to be treated as a party), and binding authority confirms newcomers are not parties absent joinder and have separate remedies to challenge an injunction.
31 Oct 2023

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. PERSONS CONDUCTING THEMSELVES IN ANY OF THE ACTS PROHIBITED UNDER PARAGRAPH 1(a), (b), (c) OR (d) OF THE INDORSEMENT OF CLAIM

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 2741
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA855/2023

The court held that s.2 of the High Court Ordinance cannot be used to treat every person served under an unusually wide substituted service order as a party where the context requires application of specific joinder rules (O.15 rr.4 & 6); substituted service in these circumstances did not create a new category of party, Ms Chow did not apply for joinder and therefore was not a party and her summons is dismissed.
28 Jun 2017

WEI XING v. WILLWIN DEVELOPMENT (ASIA) CO LTD

Citation

WEI XING v. WILLWIN DEVELOPMENT (ASIA) CO LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1922/2016

The application to vary the costs order was dismissed: the Calderbank offer was either inadmissible or immaterial because the applicant achieved a better outcome, the offer was made late with an unreasonably short response time, and the question of Wen's party status and liability for costs had already been adjudicated; accordingly costs were ordered to the applicant on a nisi basis and the $350,000 security paid into court was released to the applicant.
25 Jan 2017

EXCELLENT INVESTMENT (GROUP) LTD (IN LIQUIDATION) v. SIN YUK LING

Citation

EXCELLENT INVESTMENT (GROUP) LTD (IN LIQUIDATION) v. SIN YUK LING
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCW294/2012

Leave to appeal was refused because there was no reasonable prospect of success: the criticisms amounted to re‑argument of discretionary findings or factual rivalries which did not demonstrate error, the JSL failed to take points below and attempted late submissions, and the judge properly exercised discretion in awarding costs against them.
19 Sept 2013

LAU YUE KUI AND OTHERS v. PHILIP CHAN & CO (A FIRM)

Citation

LAU YUE KUI AND OTHERS v. PHILIP CHAN & CO (A FIRM)
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV120/2013

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal because the Judge's reinstatement of the 2nd to 6th plaintiffs as parties and his directions for taxation and costs fell within the proper exercise of judicial discretion; there was no clear error in holding that the 2nd to 6th plaintiffs had a sufficient interest for s68(2) purposes (including by reason of the consent order and potential interest in surplus income), and the assessments of costs and the order on taxing fee were within the range of reasonable directions and assessments and therefore would not be disturbed on appeal.
15 Jun 2012

KEVIN ROY MAWER AND ANOTHER v. WANI MOHAMED HUSSAIN AND OTHERS

Citation

KEVIN ROY MAWER AND ANOTHER v. WANI MOHAMED HUSSAIN AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP789/2008

Directors who acted under an express exception to oppose winding-up did so on behalf of their companies and were not parties in their personal capacities for purposes of costs; therefore costs of the validation and provisional liquidator applications must be paid by the companies as expenses of liquidation, petitioners and receivers are entitled to their costs, and the Jersey Receivers' costs in HCMP 789 are payable by the companies (3rd and 4th defendants) to the plaintiffs taxed party-and-party.
29 May 2003

YEUNG BEE LEE, BILLY v. HKSAR

Citation

YEUNG BEE LEE, BILLY v. HKSAR
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV195/2002

Leave to appeal was refused because the order for security for costs was made in accordance with established principles and supported by authority; the applicant failed to demonstrate any matter of great general or public importance under s.22(1) of the Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, and the prior decision (including dismissal of CACV282/1998) covered the applicant and found no valid claim to monetary compensation, so no basis existed to grant leave.

Hong Kong Case Law

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. PERSONS CONDUCTING THEMSELVES IN ANY OF THE ACTS PROHIBITED UNDER PARAGRAPH 1(a), (b), (c) OR (d) OF THE INDORSEMENT OF CLAIM

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. PERSONS CONDUCTING THEMSELVES IN ANY OF THE ACTS PROHIBITED UNDER PARAGRAPH 1(a), (b), (c) OR (d) OF THE INDORSEMENT OF CLAIM

WEI XING v. WILLWIN DEVELOPMENT (ASIA) CO LTD

EXCELLENT INVESTMENT (GROUP) LTD (IN LIQUIDATION) v. SIN YUK LING

LAU YUE KUI AND OTHERS v. PHILIP CHAN & CO (A FIRM)

KEVIN ROY MAWER AND ANOTHER v. WANI MOHAMED HUSSAIN AND OTHERS

YEUNG BEE LEE, BILLY v. HKSAR