Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Procedural discretion

Legal area

Court

17 Jul 2024

劉澍財對何耀明

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 1839
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCSA35/2024

Leave to appeal was refused because the record showed the hearing was conducted in Chinese with translation provided, the tribunal has statutory discretion under Cap.338 s16(1) to manage informal procedures and languages, the Statutory Languages Ordinance allows English filings subject to translation arrangements, and the claimant failed to demonstrate procedural irregularity or prejudice warranting appellate intervention.
26 Oct 2023

劉華對香港醫務委員會

Citation

[2023] HKCA 1245
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV152/2020

Permission to appeal was refused because the appeal had no real prospect of success: the costs order was a legitimate exercise of the trial court's discretion (extension applications attract costs under Order 62 r3(4)); the DOJ complied with procedural requirements and Practice Direction 14.3; the alleged breaches of rules and Practice Direction were unfounded; there was no basis to grant a stay pending NPCSC interpretation.
6 Dec 2021

KHAN SHAHZAD v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 3490
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL745/2021

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant affirmatively sought to withdraw and declared he had no problem in his home country, removing the practical purpose of any remedy; the court applied the established principle that it may refuse to grant a remedy that would be otiose.
21 Sept 2021

RE NGUYEN THI THU HUYEN

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 2673
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1316/2018

The application for extension of time was refused because the applicant offered no explanation for the delay and the intended appeal had no realistic prospect of success: the Board's findings showed the matter was a monetary dispute, threats were verbal, state protection was available and internal relocation was viable; applying the established four‑factor test, extension was unjustified.
8 Feb 2019

KHAN SHER v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2019] HKCA 151
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV368/2018

Leave to appeal was refused because the applicant failed to demonstrate any reasonably arguable point or any question of great general or public importance as required by s22(1)(b) Cap.484; the application was merely a reiteration of disagreement with findings of the Director and the Board and offered no prospect of success.
31 Mar 2009

BEATRICE TSANG SAU HING AND ANOTHER v. YEUNG MAN LOONG MAXLY AND OTHERS

Citation

BEATRICE TSANG SAU HING AND ANOTHER v. YEUNG MAN LOONG MAXLY AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCW50/2006

A taxing master has the discretionary power under Order 62, rule 17 to grant interim certificates for unopposed items in a bill of costs even at the call-over hearing; the Paying Parties failed to establish reasons to refuse the exercise of that discretion, and there was no basis for a discount or instalment payments, accordingly interim certificates for specified sums were ordered payable forthwith.
27 Mar 2009

FAR EAST INC. LTD v. MTR CORPORATION LTD

Citation

FAR EAST INC. LTD v. MTR CORPORATION LTD
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FAMV74/2008

The applications for leave to appeal were dismissed because the Court concluded that the Court of Appeal was entitled to exercise its discretion to dismiss the expedited appeals in the absence of anyone to address the court, that the complaint was fact-specific and did not raise points of law of general public importance, and that there was no merit in the appeals.
27 Mar 2009

STANDARD INC. LTD v. MTR CORPORATION LTD

Citation

STANDARD INC. LTD v. MTR CORPORATION LTD
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FAMV75/2008

The applications for leave to appeal were dismissed because the Court found the complaint was fact specific, no point of law of general or public importance was shown, and the Court of Appeal acted within its discretion to dismiss the appeals in the circumstances (including absence of representation and expedited hearing); the appeals were also considered without merit.
27 Mar 2009

SOUTHERN KING LTD v. MTR CORPORATION LTD

Citation

SOUTHERN KING LTD v. MTR CORPORATION LTD
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FAMV69/2008

The Court dismissed the applications for leave because the dismissal of the appeals by the lower court was within the court's discretion given the applicants' failure to be represented and prosecute the appeals; the complaints were fact-specific and did not raise points of law of great general or public importance and the appeals lacked merit.
27 Mar 2009

NEW CONCEPT INC. LTD v. MTR CORPORATION LTD

Citation

NEW CONCEPT INC. LTD v. MTR CORPORATION LTD
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FAMV72/2008

Leave to appeal was refused because the Court of Appeal's dismissal was a lawful exercise of its discretion where the applicants had no one to address the expedited hearing, the complaint was fact‑specific and did not raise questions of law of general or public importance, and the Court of Appeal had correctly assessed the appeals as lacking merit.