Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Sealing of order

Legal area

Court

31 Dec 2025

WANG BOHENG v. 于卡弗

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 6478
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA193/2025

Because paragraph 12 of the Decision was erroneous due to the omission of page 2 of the writ from the hearing bundle and the Court has jurisdiction to vary decisions before sealing to avoid injustice, the Court revoked paragraph 12 and related orders, dismissed the Defendant's summons dated 1 December 2025, and ordered the Defendant to pay the Plaintiff's costs for both summonses summarily assessed at $70,000 (order absolute on costs).
10 Dec 2018

THE LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL COMMISSION v. SIXTUS LEUNG CHUNG HANG AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2018] HKCA 921
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV333/2018

The Court retains a discretionary power to re-open a judgment before sealing, but that power will only be exercised in exceptional circumstances where strong reasons in the interest of justice are shown; the applicant failed to demonstrate any reasonable ground to re-open, so the summons must be dismissed.
24 Nov 2017

LAU WING YAN v. THE OWNERS AND/OR DEMISE CHARTERERS OF THE SHIP OR VESEEL “BBG GLORY”

Citation

LAU WING YAN v. THE OWNERS AND/OR DEMISE CHARTERERS OF THE SHIP OR VESEEL “BBG GLORY”
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAJ78/2017

The costs order made in the Decision was an order nisi under O.42 r.5B and the court has power to vary it to an order of summary assessment with immediate payment; sale of the vessels renders the related admiralty claims academic but does not preclude immediate payment of costs; derivative claims require joinder and do not prevent defendants from having costs paid forthwith.
10 Oct 2000

THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF TUEN MUN HUNG CHEUNG INDUSTRIAL CENTRE (PHASE 1) v. UNITED HONG KONG LTD.

Citation

THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF TUEN MUN HUNG CHEUNG INDUSTRIAL CENTRE (PHASE 1) v. UNITED HONG KONG LTD.
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP4990/2000

Because the defendant was unaware that the sealing on 18 July had triggered the time limit, discovered that fact on 25 September and applied promptly, the court exercised its discretion in the interests of justice to extend the time for serving the notice of appeal to 4.00 p.m. on 13 October 2000.

Hong Kong Case Law

WANG BOHENG v. 于卡弗

THE LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL COMMISSION v. SIXTUS LEUNG CHUNG HANG AND ANOTHER

LAU WING YAN v. THE OWNERS AND/OR DEMISE CHARTERERS OF THE SHIP OR VESEEL “BBG GLORY”

THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF TUEN MUN HUNG CHEUNG INDUSTRIAL CENTRE (PHASE 1) v. UNITED HONG KONG LTD.