Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Preliminary issue

Legal area

Court

30 Jan 2026

LO FONG HUNG v. FUNG YUEN KWAN, VERONICA AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 741
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP2219/2020

Where the issues and evidence were entangled and the petitioner failed to prove the Co-operation Agreement, the general rule that costs follow the event applies; an issue-based apportionment was inappropriate, there was no basis to adjourn costs pending appeal, and consequently the petitioner must pay the costs of the Preliminary Issue forthwith (with certificate for three counsel to be taxed if not agreed) and pay the costs of her unsuccessful summons, summarily assessed.
30 Jun 2025

JOINT AND SEVERAL LIQUIDATORS OF HSIN CHONG CONSTRUCTION (ASIA) LTD (In Liquidation) v. THE BANK OF EAST ASIA LTD

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 2829
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCW239/2018

The Court dismissed the application to try the proposed legal question as a preliminary issue because the Bank had delayed unreasonably in raising the issue, the proposed bifurcation would likely multiply and prolong proceedings and prejudice the liquidators, and existing Hong Kong Court of Appeal authorities are contrary to the Bank’s position such that resolving the preliminary question first was unlikely to be dispositive without ultimate appellate (Court of Final Appeal) resolution.
30 Jun 2025

JOINT AND SEVERAL LIQUIDATORS OF HSIN CHONG CONSTRUCTION (ASIA) LTD (In Liquidation) v. THE BANK OF EAST ASIA LTD

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 2829
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCW316/2018

The Court dismissed the Bank’s application to try the proposed legal question as a preliminary issue because the Bank provided no adequate explanation for the delay, caused prejudice and further delay to the liquidation process, and faced significant precedent obstacles given binding Court of Appeal decisions rejecting the Bank’s contention; accordingly case management required that the s.182 proceedings proceed without a separate preliminary trial.
9 Aug 2024

BOLD SHINE INVESTMENT LTD v. ZHENG DELI aka CHEANG LEI and CHEANG TAK LEI

Citation

[2024] HKCA 767
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP100/2024

The court reaffirmed that a challenge to a plaintiff company's authority to sue is not a defence and must be raised early and decided before the merits trial; while courts have case management powers to deal with late challenges (including adjournment for a preliminary trial or oral evidence), they may not simply defer decision and treat lack of authority as a matter of defence to be resolved only at the substantive trial. However, leave to appeal was refused because the trial had already commenced and evidence had closed, and appellate intervention at that stage would improperly interfere wi…
12 Jul 2023

DINGWAY INVESTMENT LTD (Provisional Liquidators Appointed) v. CHINA CITY CONSTRUCTION & DEVELOPMENT CO (HONG KONG) LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 1649
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA309/2022

Stay HCA 356 pending resolution of HCA 309 was ordered upon CCCI giving an undertaking because (1) there is real risk of inconsistent findings if proceedings run in parallel; (2) the Title/Trust Issue is not clearly dispositive of whether the October 2019 transfer was wrongful and does not amount to exceptional circumstances to justify a standalone preliminary trial; and (3) staying HCA 356 avoids duplication and saves costs and time. Other summonses seeking stays or preliminary trials were dismissed. Costs orders nisi were made as set out.
2 Jun 2023

CYCC v. NYT

Citation

[2023] HKFC 99
Court

Family Court
Case number

FCMC1223/2021

The joinder and preliminary issue were unjustified because the true dispute was a personal loan rather than a claim of beneficial ownership; the Wife and Intervener were responsible for issuing the joinder and therefore, save for limited costs relating to the Intervener's affirmation that remains relevant to the ancillary relief, the costs of and incidental to the joinder application and preliminary issue proceedings are to be paid jointly by the Wife and the Intervener, to be taxed if not agreed.
20 Oct 2022

STEADFAST INTERNATIONAL LTD v. TUENBO CO LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 3251
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2095/2016

The Court held that the Authority Issue in HCA 566/2019 had been finally determined by DHCJ Stock SC such that re‑litigating it in HCA 566/2019 would be an abuse of process; accordingly the Court declined to order a preliminary issue or to order the two actions to be tried together but exercised case management discretion to stay HCA 566/2019 pending resolution of HCA 2095/2016, with findings in HCA 2095/2016 to bind HCA 566/2019 and liberty to apply; costs to be in the cause with certificates for two counsel.
20 Nov 2020

HO KWOK WA v. YIP YUK KWAN AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 2930
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1096/2013

The Master lacked jurisdiction to try the Preliminary Issue because there was no consent of the parties as required by RHC Order 36 r.1; consequently the appeal challenging the Master's jurisdiction properly lay to the Court of First Instance and the Master's order of 8 April 2019 was set aside. RHC O.58 r.2 is limited to substantive appeals from trials by a Master conducted with the parties' consent and does not oust the CFI's jurisdiction to hear jurisdictional challenges.
2 Jan 2018

CHOW CHUN KIT, the personal representative of the estate of CHOW WING CHEUK v. CHOW PO YUEN, a minor by PANG ZHENG YUN, her guardian ad litem

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 2
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1455/2014

Refusal of the application for a split trial and for determination of liability as a preliminary issue because evidence as to the size and nature of the estate (relevant under s5(1)(e)) is intricately connected with the question whether the Pangs were maintained by the deceased; requiring a separate trial on liability without such evidence would be unjust to the Pangs and give the Administrator an unfair advantage; although some liability issues are distinct, overall there is no clear demarcation making separate trial just and convenient.
31 Oct 2016

MLYE v. LOS

Citation

MLYE v. LOS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP235/2016

Leave to appeal was refused because the intended appeal merely sought to re-litigate the 6 November 2012 special issue judgment which was not appealed, there was no demonstrated error of law in the adverse inference or findings on ownership of AFCL, no unfairness shown, and therefore the statutory threshold in s63A(2) District Court Ordinance was not satisfied.