Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Service out of jurisdiction

Legal area

Court

14 Apr 2026

A 及另一人對 D

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2151
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP155/2026

The court refused permission for substituted service to a Mainland address because service of the writ in the Mainland must be effected via the prescribed Mainland–HKSAR judicial arrangement and Order 11 r.5A(1) requires transmission through Mainland judicial authorities; the attempted private service by the applicants’ agent was therefore legally ineffective and substituted service by post was not justified; the applicants must therefore effect service of the writ via the Arrangement before further steps are taken.
13 Apr 2026

OLDHAM, LI & NIE, SOLICITORS (A FIRM) v. MELVIN WAXMAN AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2098
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA263/2023

The Master held that the proposed contractual claims arise from the same debt and facts and therefore are permitted amendments which disclose a reasonable cause of action, but the fraud allegations constitute a new cause of action for which no supporting affidavit was provided to meet the service-out requirements, and therefore those fraud amendments are disallowed; accordingly D2's strike-out application is dismissed and P's amendment is allowed in part.
25 Mar 2026

CHIEF HOLDINGS (H.K.) LTD AND ANOTHER v. HE CHENGUANG AND OTHERS

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 1502
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2415/2014

Leave to appeal was refused because the proposed grounds lacked a reasonable prospect of success: (1) it was not plain and obvious that the PRC judgments decided the issues necessary to found issue estoppel as to party identity, locus or payment; (2) there was no clear abuse of process given the narrower scope of the Mainland proceedings and enforcement difficulties; and (3) defects in particulars do not justify striking out rather than seeking further particulars. Costs were ordered against the applicants.
9 Feb 2026

ANG JIMMY TJUN MIN v. KHOO CHUN KIM AND OTHERS

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 841
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA16/2021

Jimmy's late disclosure of an alleged debt, his attempt to hold estate funds to ransom by asserting priority and imposing fettering conditions, and his refusal to cooperate on service and funding frustrated the Court's proactive case management and endangered the Administrator's ability to comply with the Global CMC. That misconduct disentitled Jimmy to costs and required him personally to bear the costs of the summons; accordingly costs were ordered against him (Mother's camp on indemnity basis and Administrator on trustee basis) and quantified as assessed.
2 Feb 2026

HSC AND ANOTHER v. T

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 770
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP706/2025

Court found statutory conditions in s.12 PCO satisfied: embryos created using Husband's gametes, children living with applicants, applicants domiciled/connected to Hong Kong, surrogates freely consented. Applicants acted in good faith and without moral taint; the disputed payments were not disproportionate in the context and appropriate sums were approved. Delay beyond six months was justified by ignorance and attempts to remedy status; extension of time granted. On that basis parental orders were granted for both boys and specified payments were approved, balancing illegality concerns with p…
22 Jan 2026

AIM GLOBAL HOLDINGS LTD AND OTHERS v. CHIEN KUN ALLEN AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 570
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2217/2014

On the evidence and adopting reasoning from the prior judgment and the 1st IP Decision, the applicant demonstrated an arguable entitlement to the additional interim payment of US$4.8 million; the summons and documents were validly served and service out was justified; accordingly the 2nd IP Summons is allowed and costs are awarded to the applicant.
27 Oct 2025

香港長城投資有限公司 v. 施鶴平

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 5007
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP287/2025

Because there are material factual disputes as to whether the signatures on the Board Resolution were forged or improperly attached, the matter is unsuitable for determination on affidavits by originating summons; accordingly the court exercised O.28 r.8(1) to order pleadings and refused to grant final relief on the originating summons.
15 Sept 2025

OZNER WATER INTERNATIONAL HOLDING LTD (IN LIQUIDATION) AND ANOTHER v. ERNST & YOUNG (A FIRM) AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 4203
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA295/2022

The court found the Plaintiffs materially failed to disclose the Exemption Clauses in the engagement GT&Cs at the ex parte Leave Applications; those clauses were objectively material because they could confer enforceable third‑party benefits to EYHM and potentially destroy any serious issue to be tried as to EYHM; accordingly all Leave Orders were set aside and no re‑grant was ordered given the repeated and non‑inadvertent nature of the non‑disclosure and the need to protect the administration of justice.
15 Sept 2025

OZNER WATER INTERNATIONAL HOLDING LTD (IN LIQUIDATION) AND ANOTHER v. ERNST & YOUNG HUA MING LLP

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 4203
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA172/2024

The court held there was material non‑disclosure by the plaintiffs of Exemption Clauses in the Engagement Letters which were objectively material because they could give EYHM a viable, potentially dispositive defence enforceable under the CRTPO; accordingly all Leave Orders granting service out and extensions were set aside and no re‑grant was made.
22 Aug 2025

LIAO CHEN TOH v. LOYAL INTERNATIONAL ENTERPRISES CO LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 3812
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2302/2014

The Court held that pleadings were deemed closed under Order 18 r.20 once the reply/defence to counterclaim was filed, regardless of outstanding service on some CTC defendants or intended amendments; accordingly the Long Case Summons was not premature, the case was assigned to a judge, costs of the Long Case Summons were ordered to be paid by the Plaintiff to the Defendants to be summarily assessed with a 50/50 apportionment for hearing time, and the Amendment and Time Summonses were adjourned to the assigned judge.