Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Preliminary hearing

Legal area

Court

17 Jul 2024

FORTUNE FRIEND LTD AND OTHERS v. APPEAL TRIBUNAL (BUILDINGS)

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 1856
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL2320/2023

The Court exercised its costs discretion to partially vary the nisi order: the Building Authority must pay the Applicants' costs of the judicial review and the Applicants' legal representatives' attendance on the day of the Preliminary Hearing (to be taxed if not agreed); all other costs occasioned by the Preliminary Hearing remain reserved to the Appeal Tribunal to be dealt with as part of the costs of the appeals; no order as to the costs of the variation application.
26 Mar 2019

LEAD HARVEST GROUP LTD AND OTHERS v. CHEONG WING ELECTRIC LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2019] HKLdT 25
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDCS6000/2018

The tribunal held that an order is required to have points of law disposed of at a preliminary hearing; there were no agreed or admitted facts and the contested questions depended on factual and expert evidence and would not dispose of the proceedings; therefore it was inappropriate to determine them interlocutorily and the summonses were dismissed with costs.
29 Jan 2014

LONGEST PROFIT (HONG KONG) LTD v. APPEAL TRIBUNAL (BUILDINGS)

Citation

LONGEST PROFIT (HONG KONG) LTD v. APPEAL TRIBUNAL (BUILDINGS)
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV60/2013

The Court dismissed the appeal: fresh evidence directed at merits was irrelevant to the judicial review and therefore inadmissible on appeal; under s49 the appellant bore the evidential burden to show good cause for a full hearing and failed to present witness statements or expert reports before the Tribunal, so the Tribunal's refusal to order a full hearing was rational and fair and not subject to public law intervention.
28 Oct 2013

RONALD WILSON, LI DO WAI & TANG SO HA AND OTHERS v. APPEAL TRIBUNAL (BUILDINGS)

Citation

RONALD WILSON, LI DO WAI & TANG SO HA AND OTHERS v. APPEAL TRIBUNAL (BUILDINGS)
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL165/2012

The Tribunal's decision was lawful and is upheld: the structures are building works carried out without prior approval, they fall within the actionable categories targeted under Blitz 2010 and are not exempt under s41(3); the Appeal Tribunal properly exercised its power under s49 to dismiss the appeals for failing to show good cause for a full hearing; the Building Authority's enforcement policy and its application in this case were lawful and not inflexibly applied.
7 Mar 2013

LONGEST PROFIT (HONG KONG) LTD v. APPEAL TRIBUNAL (BUILDINGS)

Citation

LONGEST PROFIT (HONG KONG) LTD v. APPEAL TRIBUNAL (BUILDINGS)
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL14/2012

The Tribunal's dismissal of the appeal at the preliminary hearing was lawful because it reasonably concluded on the evidence before it that the Structure was most likely a new building and that the works were not exempt under s41(3); the Tribunal acted within its discretion in refusing to hear live witness evidence; even if the finding that the Structure was new were wrong, the alternative finding that the works were unauthorized sufficed to dismiss the appeal; the applicant's non-disclosure at the leave stage further undermined the judicial review.
15 Oct 2012

CHINLUCK PROPERTIES LTD v. APPEAL TRIBUNAL (BUILDINGS)

Citation

CHINLUCK PROPERTIES LTD v. APPEAL TRIBUNAL (BUILDINGS)
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL124/2012

Leave was refused because the Applicant's grounds were not reasonably arguable: there was no evidential basis of wholesale unlawful delegation to DTZ, the orders were issued by the BA and service via an agent was not precluded by the Ordinance, and the 1998 letter did not amount to a clear unambiguous representation giving rise to a legitimate expectation; the Tribunal therefore properly exercised its power under the Buildings Ordinance to refuse a full hearing.
7 Jun 2002

JADE CITY INTERNATIONAL LTD. v. DIRECTOR OF LANDS

Citation

JADE CITY INTERNATIONAL LTD. v. DIRECTOR OF LANDS
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV2631/2001

Section 12 must be read in its statutory context with ss3-10: the compensation scheme is linked to statutory easements created under ss6-10 and therefore 'land' in s12 is confined to land identified in the relevant orders/Gazette (servient tenements); consequential and purposive interpretative principles support limiting compensation to owners of those servient tenements; appeal allowed.
11 May 2001

Gallium Development Ltd. and Another v. Winning Properties Management Ltd. and Another

Citation

Gallium Development Ltd. and Another v. Winning Properties Management Ltd. and Another
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDBM121/2000

The summons under Rule 18 was dismissed because there were no agreed or admitted facts that the listed resolutions had in fact been passed; without such factual foundation the Tribunal could not apply clause 4(5) of the Seventh Schedule or clause 27(1) of the DMC and therefore Rule 18 was inapplicable.
16 Sept 1999

AKTIESELSKABET DANSK SKIBFINANSIERING (body corporate) v. WHEELOCK MARDEN & CO. LTD. AND OTHERS

Citation

AKTIESELSKABET DANSK SKIBFINANSIERING (body corporate) v. WHEELOCK MARDEN & CO. LTD. AND OTHERS
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FACV27/1998

The judge refused to direct a preliminary hearing on objections to attacks on concurrent findings because such attacks do not ordinarily lend themselves to preliminary hearings and the court can control hopeless attacks at the main hearing; the hearing of the appeals was fixed at 15 working days; and the costs of the directions application were ordered as costs in the fraudulent trading appeal (FACV No. 27 of 1998).
16 Sept 1999

AKTIESELSKABET DANSK SKIBFINANSIERING (body corporate) v. ROBERT JOHN FRANCIS BROTHERS

Citation

AKTIESELSKABET DANSK SKIBFINANSIERING (body corporate) v. ROBERT JOHN FRANCIS BROTHERS
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FACV25/1998

The judge refused to direct a preliminary hearing because attacks on concurrent findings are generally unsuitable for preliminary hearings and the Court can control hopeless arguments within the main hearing; the judge fixed the hearing at 15 working days and ordered that the costs of the directions application be costs in the fraudulent trading appeal (FACV No.27 of 1998).