Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Representation at hearing

Legal area

Court

24 Jul 2025

HILL CONCEPT LTD v. YUEN YUN OR FORMERLY KNOWN AS YUEN TIN YUN

Citation

[2025] HKDC 1255
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ4215/2023

The application for leave to appeal was dismissed because the defendant failed to demonstrate a reasonable prospect of success or any other compelling interest of justice: no new or persuasive grounds were advanced, no reliable medical evidence supported the claimed incapacity, and the applicant did not show that the Judge’s factual findings were plainly wrong or that relevant evidence was overlooked.
5 Jul 2018

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

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 1419
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL650/2017

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant's grounds were not reasonably arguable: the adjudicator's adverse credibility findings were supported by material inconsistencies, use of a false identity and lack of corroboration; there was no demonstrated procedural unfairness or error of law and the decision was not Wednesbury unreasonable.
27 Mar 2009

SOURCE INC. LTD v. MTR CORPORATION LTD

Citation

SOURCE INC. LTD v. MTR CORPORATION LTD
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FAMV77/2008

The applications for leave to appeal were dismissed because the Court of Appeal acted within its discretion in dismissing the expedited appeals where there was no one to address the court, the applicants' complaints were fact-specific and did not raise points of general public importance, and the appeals lacked 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.

Hong Kong Case Law

HILL CONCEPT LTD v. YUEN YUN OR FORMERLY KNOWN AS YUEN TIN YUN

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

SOURCE INC. LTD v. MTR CORPORATION LTD

SOUTHERN KING LTD v. MTR CORPORATION LTD

NEW CONCEPT INC. LTD v. MTR CORPORATION LTD