Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Practice directions compliance

Legal area

Court

9 Jun 2025

RODERICK MILLER v. THE LAW SOCIETY OF HONG KONG

Citation

[2025] HKCA 545
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV529/2018

Given admissions before the SDT and the case's relative lack of documentary complexity the Court applied a broad‑brush assessment: it reduced the Law Society's claimed costs and assessed them at HKD 800,000, ordered Mr Miller to pay a 50% reasonable contribution (HKD 400,000) after considering his means, disallowed substantial parts of Mr Miller's claimed appeal costs and limited counsel fees to HKD 250,000, set off the award to produce a net liability (penalty plus balance of costs) and imposed monthly instalments of HKD 4,000 starting 2 August 2025.
20 Dec 2024

ANTHONIA LOUISE ZOYA ANTON v. HONG KONG AIRCRAFT ENGINEERING COMPANY LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 3656
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCPI152/2021

Master Leung erred in procedurally dismissing the discovery summons without considering the full procedural history and context (including an agreed stay for mediation and prior directions by Master So). The plaintiff's pre‑accident medical records are necessary for the fair disposal of issues of causation and future loss; the 2nd defendant's delay in issuing the summons was excused by the agreed stay and prompt steps after mediation failed. Appeal allowed in terms of the notice with a reduced scope of discovery; matter remitted for substantive determination of discovery and related direction…
20 Dec 2024

ANTHONIA LOUISE ZOYA ANTON v. HONG KONG AIRCRAFT ENGINEERING COMPANY LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 3656
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCPI153/2021

Master Leung was wrong to summarily dismiss the discovery summons procedurally without hearing substantive arguments because, in context, 2nd Defendant's application was foreshadowed and delayed only by an agreed stay for mediation and prior directions by Master So permitting a later application; the pre-accident medical records sought are necessary for fair disposal on issues of causation and future loss; the appeal is therefore allowed in terms of the notice of appeal with a reduced scope of discovery and the matter remitted for substantive consideration; costs are ordered accordingly.
22 May 2024

劉祖榮對陳淑惠

Citation

[2024] HKCA 452
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV288/2023

The Court refused the appellant's application for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal under s22(1)(b) because the complaints were confined to case-management matters specific to the underlying proceedings and lacked wide public importance; the alleged breaches of Practice Direction 19.1 and service by email were either satisfied or did not cause demonstrable prejudice (skeleton argument qualified as written notice; "five working days" excludes weekends and Order 3 r2 does not apply to Practice Directions; email was an acceptable delivery method and the appellant had opportunity to re…
22 Aug 2023

覃錫鴻對金英子經營新世界食品公司

Citation

[2023] HKCA 962
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV478/2022

Leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal was refused because the proposed appeal did not involve any issue of broad or public importance under s22(1)(b), had no real prospect of success, and the applicant failed to comply with Practice Direction 2.1 (no written submissions), so the application must be dismissed.
4 Nov 2020

SMARTEK E & M ENGINEERING (HK) LTD v. WIN WIN WAY CONSTRUCTION CO., LTD

Citation

[2020] HKDC 1005
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ5104/2017

The court found the adjournment caused by the plaintiff solicitors' failure to comply with Practice Directions; that fault justified requiring the plaintiff's solicitors to bear all costs thrown away; solicitors were given 14 days to show cause why they should not be personally liable and why costs should not be assessed on an indemnity basis; the trial was adjourned to a new fixed date.
15 Aug 2016

HSYJ v. CCMR

Citation

HSYJ v. CCMR
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1255/2016

On the transcript of the 11 September 2013 hearing the parties unambiguously agreed that the Shatin Centre property would go to the petitioner and the amendment to the sealed consent order was properly made to record that agreed term; the respondent's grounds are unarguable and the intended appeal has no reasonable prospect of success under s63A Cap.336, therefore leave to appeal is refused and the respondent's summons dismissed.
24 Aug 2015

SAVILLS (HONG KONG) LTD v. KIT WANG GROUP (CHINA) LTD

Citation

SAVILLS (HONG KONG) LTD v. KIT WANG GROUP (CHINA) LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1779/2014

The court held the parol evidence rule applied and there was no admissible or credible evidence of a contemporaneous oral condition to the cheque; the alleged oral agreement was inherently improbable and unsubstantiated and the total failure of consideration defence was untenable; therefore the Master’s summary judgment for the plaintiff was affirmed and the appeal dismissed.
28 Feb 2014

YEUNG HAU MING, THE ADMINISTRATRIX OF THE ESTATE OF YEUNG TSANG KWAN, DECEASED v. YEUNG WAN KAM AND OTHERS

Citation

YEUNG HAU MING, THE ADMINISTRATRIX OF THE ESTATE OF YEUNG TSANG KWAN, DECEASED v. YEUNG WAN KAM AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA324/2010

Because the 3rd defendant's second affirmation disclosed the documents sought, the plaintiff succeeded in obtaining the relief sought and is entitled to costs under Order 62 r 5(1)(f); however the plaintiff's solicitor failed to comply with Practice Direction 14.3 para 7, so specific claimed items for today's hearing were disallowed and costs were assessed on a broad-brush basis under Order 62 r 9A at HKD 25,000 payable by the defendants within 14 days.
12 Nov 2012

CHAU TAM YUET CHING v. DIRECTOR OF LANDS

Citation

CHAU TAM YUET CHING v. DIRECTOR OF LANDS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL66/2012

The application to vary the costs order nisi was refused because the circumstances of this case did not meet the threshold of exceptionality required to depart from the general rule of no costs against an unsuccessful leave applicant; consequently the order of no order as to costs of the leave application becomes absolute and costs of the costs application are included.