Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Res judicata/issue estoppel

Legal area

Court

26 Feb 2026

蘇書幼對懲教署

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 1178
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCPI227/2025

The claim was struck out and the action dismissed because the pleaded cause of action was duplicative of and already finally determined by the earlier DCPI 617/2022 proceedings (abuse of process/res judicata), and in any event the claim was clearly time‑barred under the Limitation Ordinance s27 with s22 inapplicable; the plaintiff’s pleadings failed to disclose on their face a reasonable cause of action or causal link supported by material particulars, justifying strike out under Order 18 r19.
26 Jan 2026

有關蔣立維的事宜

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 372
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCB1719/2025

The application for extension of time for leave to appeal was refused because the delay of over four months was serious and inadequately explained, the proposed appeal had no real prospect of success as it sought to relitigate issues already finally determined by DCCJ 3621/2020, and the debtor therefore failed all relevant tests for granting late leave; the summons filed 18 November 2025 was struck out and a provisional costs order was made against the debtor.
8 Aug 2025

RASHID ZAFAR GHORI v. SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE sued for and on behalf of DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION

Citation

[2025] HKDC 1313
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ2590/2022

Coleman J's prior habeas corpus decision was a final judgment on the lawfulness of the plaintiff's detention for the relevant period and therefore gives rise to issue estoppel precluding the plaintiff from litigating the same unlawful detention claim for 5 August 2021 to 30 June 2022; the degrading treatment claim is demurrable because the BORO does not create an independent cause of action and, in any event, the factual allegations were not proved on the evidence; consequently the action is dismissed with costs.
9 Jun 2025

梁中平對張世文蔡敏律師事務所

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 2178
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP836/2023

Both originating summonses were struck out because they failed to disclose any reasonable cause, contained unsubstantiated serious allegations that were malicious, frivolous and an abuse of court process, and the matters complained of had been dealt with in earlier proceedings; accordingly immediate strike‑out and a two‑year interim restriction order were necessary to prevent further abuse and to protect court resources.
6 May 2025

許粵琼對 THE PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OFTHE ESTATE OF HON YUET FA（韓月花）, THE DECEASED及另四人

Citation

[2025] HKDC 758
Court

District Court
Case number

DCMP1548/2020

The application to extend time was refused because the applicant provided no credible basis for delay, no supporting medical evidence, failed to demonstrate any arguable prospect of success given the judgment was founded on her own pleadings and evidence, and res judicata/issue estoppel precluded the proposed challenge; therefore discretionary relief was not justified.
23 Dec 2024

陳思維對根記環保工程有限公司

Citation

[2024] HKDC 2162
Court

District Court
Case number

DCEO5/2023

The claimant failed to prove that the respondent treated him less favourably because of his disability; many of the monetary claims were subsumed in prior settled proceedings and are therefore barred by res judicata; the respondent's non‑payments were explained as insurer directions or non‑discriminatory discretionary policies; claimant failed to prove he was still in employment for the relevant alleged discriminatory acts or that the respondent communicated acceptance of any repudiation to terminate. Accordingly the discrimination claim is dismissed and costs are awarded to the respondent.
27 Aug 2024

ZS CAPITAL FUND SPC AND OTHERS v. ASTOR ASSET MANAGEMENT 3 LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 1535
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1157/2020

Plaintiffs established a strong prima facie right to redeem the deposited shares and defendant had no arguable defence to defeat the equity of redemption; although defendant has an arguable case that the Proviso might be applied, that does not negate plaintiffs' entitlement to interim relief; after deducting loan proceeds, interest and agreed costs the court ordered interim payment of HK$115,300,000 and release of the proceeds in court to plaintiffs.
19 Jul 2024

ANGELA CHEN v. WAI WAI CHEN

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 1837
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAP10/2020

Leave to introduce the Opposed Amendments was refused and the Opposed Amendments disallowed because a substantial part constituted abusive collateral attacks on prior final judgments or advanced irrelevant, scandalous or inadequately particularised pleas (including allegations properly characterised as lifetime undue influence or fiduciary breaches) that do not meet the stricter probate undue influence test; the defendant may file an amended rejoinder with the opposed material removed and must make a fresh application if she wishes to replead.
23 May 2024

LAU SIN v. WEALTH ASIA CREDITS LTD

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 1367
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1164/2023

The Originating Summons was struck out as an abuse of process because it sought to relitigate the same facts, issues and relief already raised in the extant 2017 Action between the same parties; the subsequent criminal conviction of the alleged forger did not justify commencing fresh proceedings while the earlier action remained on foot and could have been used to seek appropriate relief in that action; costs awarded to the defendant.
16 Oct 2023

RE KAMALJEET SINGH

Citation

[2023] HKCA 1195
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV126/2023

The Court held that the 1st Board Decision refusing the applicant's appeal as late was erroneous in law because the Board miscalculated service/time and failed to consider whether the Board's closure/working-day practice and fairness required treating the appeal as in time or allowing the late filing; the 2nd Board Decision was tainted because it relied on the erroneous 1st Board Decision and wrongly applied res judicata where the prior decision was procedural (not on the merits) and new material (BOR2 evidence) was presented; accordingly both Board decisions were quashed, leave to apply for…