Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Service of originating summons

Legal area

Court

28 Aug 2025

CHU SYMON HIN WING and CHU YUM HONG as the surviving managers of CHU NAM YUN (OR YUEN) suing on behalf of all members of CHU NAM YUN (OR YUEN) v. OCCUPIER(S) OF THE PREMISES AND OTHERS

Citation

[2025] HKDC 1437
Court

District Court
Case number

DCMP3068/2019

The court held that Applicants' affirmations provided prima facie evidence of occupation sufficient for joinder under O.113 r.5, but service of the Originating Summons and affirmation was irregular due to irreconcilable contradictions in the process-server's affidavits; accordingly the Possession Order and Writ were set aside as of right. P's Evidence Summons was dismissed as academic; A's Evidence Summons was dismissed for inordinate, inexcusable delay and failure to satisfy the first Ladd v Marshall limb. Costs allocated with specific apportionment between parties.
10 Jun 2025

CMB WING LUNG BANK LTD v. LEUNG WAI YAN LINDAR, be appointed to represent the estate of LEUNG KWOK HONG, deceased

Citation

[2025] HKDC 930
Court

District Court
Case number

DCMP2724/2024

The court held that the Master had jurisdiction under O 15 r 6A(4)(b) to make inquiries and direct further submissions regarding the Carry On Order and service; the purported acknowledgment of service was defective because it was on behalf of unidentified 'Personal Representatives' and did not satisfy post-carry-on service requirements, so judgment could not be entered for the plaintiff and the Master's directions were appropriate; appeal dismissed.
16 Apr 2024

KONEW CAPITAL INTERNATIONAL LTD v. LAU KWAN PAK AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2024] HKDC 624
Court

District Court
Case number

DCMP5862/2023

Plaintiff satisfied statutory and procedural requirements: the Loan Agreement complied with MLO, the 1st defendant defaulted, and RDC requirements for money judgment and possession were met; as second mortgagee the plaintiff is entitled to possession and to an order for sale under the Partition Ordinance, but all relief is granted subject to the rights of the prior first mortgagee; costs awarded on indemnity basis against the 1st defendant and no costs against the 2nd defendant.
5 Jan 2018

ADDCHANCE LTD v. HEROJOY TRADING LTD

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 38
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP2/2018

Because the alleged debt had been actively contested in prior proceedings, was inconsistent with the plaintiff's internal accounts and annual report, and the audit confirmation relied upon by the defendant was unexplained and lacked particulars, the plaintiff discharged its onus of establishing a bona fide dispute on substantial grounds and was therefore entitled to an interlocutory injunction and leave to serve a concurrent originating summons.
12 May 2017

GOTLAND ENTERPRISES LTD v. KWOK CHI YAU AND OTHERS

Citation

GOTLAND ENTERPRISES LTD v. KWOK CHI YAU AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP4550/2003

The court found that service of the originating summons was not properly effected as to Chan; Chan's adverse possession claim has a real prospect of success on the facts and he should be joined; accordingly the Consent Judgment and Writ are set aside insofar as they relate to the specified land; costs of the summons are ordered against Chan, to be taxed if not agreed.
20 Jan 2017

WONG YUK YU v. ZH HONG KONG TRADING CO, LTD

Citation

WONG YUK YU v. ZH HONG KONG TRADING CO, LTD
Court

District Court
Case number

DCMP3575/2016

On unchallenged evidence the balance in the account was traceable to payments induced by fraud; equity therefore imposed a constructive trust in favour of the plaintiff; service was adequate allowing the court to proceed in the defendant's absence; accordingly a declaration, return of the Fund and costs were appropriate and granted.
8 Mar 2016

COMMISSIONER OF POLICE v. PCCW MEDIA LTD

Citation

COMMISSIONER OF POLICE v. PCCW MEDIA LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP120/2016

Production orders were refused because the applicant failed to satisfy s84(3)(a)(iii) that the unedited footage sought was of substantial value to the investigation or necessary as relevant evidence (general Tamar Park footage and post‑assault footage were irrelevant or too wide), the identities of makers do not constitute 'journalistic material' under s82 and therefore cannot be ordered under s84, and in respect of i-CABLE there was a service/premises defect; on public interest balancing the fact the material was in the public domain and offers to authenticate by TVB made disclosure unnecess…
2 Dec 2014

SHADOW TRADING AND INVESTMENT LTD v. PERFECT RECOVERY LTD (in Members\' Voluntary Liquidation)

Citation

SHADOW TRADING AND INVESTMENT LTD v. PERFECT RECOVERY LTD (in Members\' Voluntary Liquidation)
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1535/2014

The court declined to dismiss the proceedings outright despite unjustified delay in service because the court could not form a view on the substantial claim's merits on the material before it; the defendant agreed to withdraw its summons for practical reasons; the plaintiff must pay the defendant's costs of the application but indemnity costs were refused; the court made the order in terms of the defendant's draft order.
26 May 2011

ISS EASTPOINT PROPERTIES LTD v. YUEN MEI WAH

Citation

ISS EASTPOINT PROPERTIES LTD v. YUEN MEI WAH
Court

District Court
Case number

DCMP144/2011

On the evidence (affirmation of the property manager and complaints from occupiers) the court was satisfied that the Defendant repeatedly breached the 16 January 2008 restraining order beyond reasonable doubt; accordingly an order of committal is warranted, but because the Defendant did not have the opportunity to be heard the court will not impose punishment at this stage and will issue a warrant of arrest to bring her before the court to answer for contempt.
15 Apr 2003

THE HONG KONG MORTGAGE CORPORATION LTD v. CHING KIT YU AND ANOTHER

Citation

THE HONG KONG MORTGAGE CORPORATION LTD v. CHING KIT YU AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP2226/2002

The mortgaged property address (Sui Wo Court) constituted a usual or last known address for the defendants and, given the defendants' contractual undertaking in the mortgage, insertion of the originating summons into the property's letterbox satisfied Order 10 r.1(2)(b); consequently the originating summons was duly served and the default judgment was in principle regular, although the court exercised discretion to set it aside on terms.