Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Res judicata/abuse of process

Legal area

Court

14 May 2026

鍾玲對簡兆祺及另六人

Citation

[2026] HKCA 944
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV471/2024

The appellate court held there was no error in the lower judge's exercise of discretion. The appellant's claims against the first defendant were previously resolved in DCCJ 2617/2016 and therefore abusive; claims against the second defendant were derivative and should have been raised earlier (Henderson v Henderson); claims against the housing authority lacked factual basis as the penalty period had expired and the appellant remained in occupation. Accordingly the strike‑out was upheld and costs awarded to the respondents in quantified amounts.
8 Apr 2026

劉華對香港醫務委員會

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2027
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL2361/2020

Permission was granted because it was reasonably arguable that the Committee's decision was irrational/unreasonable and/or unfair: the key experts relied on a TEE report without having inspected the primary TEE images, giving rise to a reasonably arguable failure to verify foundational evidence and to a reasonably arguable breach of experts' duties; accordingly the decision not to refer for inquiry and to terminate disciplinary action was open to judicial review.
13 May 2024

黃夢曉對張詠棋及另三人

Citation

[2024] HKCA 417
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP225/2023

Leave to appeal is refused because the applicant only re‑stated trial evidence and disagreed with credibility and factual assessments without demonstrating any clear error of law or a plainly wrong factual finding; the trial judge conducted thorough analysis, the threshold for overturning credibility determinations is high, and certain issues (plant ownership) are properly treated as not permitting re‑litigation.
2 May 2023

YUEN OI YEE LISA v. NGAI NGOK LEONG

Citation

[2023] HKCA 628
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV245/2022

The originating summons against NNL disclosed no reasonable cause of action, was frivolous and an abuse of process because NNL was not a party to the prior proceedings and had no duty to the appellant; the allegations of forgery and bias did not provide a valid basis to relitigate concluded matters; accordingly the strike out, dismissal and the restricted proceedings order were justified and the appeal is dismissed.
31 Aug 2022

何漢標對李妙桂 REPRESENTING THE ESTATE OF 何漢嘉 (DECEASED)

Citation

[2022] HKCA 1249
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP129/2022

The Court refused leave to appeal because the appellant's claim disclosed no reasonable prospect of success: it re‑litigated discredited factual assertions, was properly characterised as a breach of contract claim and barred by the six‑year limitation under Cap 347 s4(1)(a), and the counterclaim was supported by the evidence and prior foreign judgment; accordingly leave was refused and costs awarded.
15 Jul 2022

金潮順對李麗嬋經營興業運輸公司

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 2091
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCSA16/2022

The Court found the Tribunal did not err in law: the applicant's claims were plainly without merit, frivolous and repetitious; the Tribunal properly exercised its power under s25 to dismiss; there was no legal question or jurisdictional issue under s28(1) to justify granting leave to appeal, so the leave application is refused.
15 Jul 2022

金潮順對李麗嬋經營興業運輸公司及另一人

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 2091
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCSA15/2022

The Court refused leave because the applicant failed to identify any legal error; the Tribunal correctly exercised its power under s25 to dismiss plainly unmeritorious and vexatious claims, and the repeated proceedings constituted abuse of process, so leave under s28(1) was not justified.
17 Aug 2021

RE HUSSAIN WAJID

Citation

[2021] HKCA 1094
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV635/2020

Leave to apply for judicial review was properly refused because the applicant failed to identify any arguable public law error by the Director or the judge below; the Director properly applied s37ZO and relied on prior findings so the proposed subsequent claim did not demonstrate a significant change of circumstances and permitting it would be an abuse of process.
15 Jan 2020

FABIO ARLYN TIMOGAN AND OTHERS v. EVAN RUTH, ESQ., ADJUDICATOR OF THE TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 79
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL442/2018

Leave to apply for judicial review refused because applicants failed to establish any reasonably arguable legal error, irrationality or procedural unfairness in the Director's and Board's decisions; A1's re-filed challenge was an abuse of process/res judicata after prior leave refusal; A2 and A3 were out of time with no good reason to extend; the Board's finding of low localized risk with available state protection and reasonable internal relocation was a matter for the primary decision-makers and not open to review on the evidence presented.
26 Jul 2019

RE SUMON

Citation

[2019] HKCA 789
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP13/2019

Extension of time was refused because the applicant failed to provide a reasonable explanation for the delay, the second judicial review application was an abuse of process/res judicata following the prior refusal, new grounds could not be raised on appeal, and the judge had given sufficient reasons, rendering the intended appeal hopeless.