Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Slip rule

Legal area

Court

13 Aug 2025

BEIJING RENJI REAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENT GROUP CO., LTD v. ZHU MIN

Citation

[2025] HKCA 748
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP82/2025

The court held the judge’s manifest intention at the 7 February 2025 hearing was to dismiss only the interim-interim relief; the judge had jurisdiction under Order 20 r.11 and inherent jurisdiction to amend the sealed order to correct the clerical slip and to give directions for further conduct of the summons; it was proper for the judge to deliver written Reasons for Decision subsequently; the refusal to grant interim-interim receivers was a discretionary decision within bounds of reasonableness and not plainly wrong; allegations of unfair hearing or apparent bias were unfounded; the new evi…
15 Apr 2025

BEIJING RENJI REAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENT GROUP CO., LTD v. ZHU MIN

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 1480
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA189/2025

Leave to appeal was refused because the application was founded on a misconceived premise (a clerically approved draft order did not change the court's manifest oral decision), the plaintiff offered no authorities to support its position, the application had no reasonable prospect of success and there were no reasons in the interests of justice to grant leave; issues of alleged breach of natural justice are left to the Court of Appeal to determine if pursued.
12 Feb 2025

GREEN LIGHT MULTIPLEX CO LTD (formerly known as GREEN LIGHT MARKETING CO LTD and GLM INTERNATIONAL LTD) v. LAM SHI YAN

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 702
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2128/2015

The court would have awarded the interest claimed when delivering judgment but omitted to do so by accidental slip; accordingly the omission is correctable under Order 20 r.11 and interest is awarded on the net judgment sum from the date of the writ at the specified rates, and the 1st defendant must pay the plaintiff's costs of the application to be taxed if not agreed.
9 Dec 2024

NG YIU CHI v. NG KWOK PIU PHILIP

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 3552
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCSD21/2023

The court held the first and second costs orders imposed joint and several liability on the applicant and her co‑paying parties; the respondent was prima facie entitled to claim the entire taxed costs where the orders were silent as to apportionment; the applicant failed to discharge the burden to show special circumstances or separate causation to defeat joint and several liability; the statutory demand was not unjust or overstated and must not be set aside.
16 Sept 2024

MEI KING MACHINERY ENGINEERING v. PRIZEMART LTD

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 2428
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA283/2023

The appeal was dismissed: the costs order was properly interpreted as awarding the costs of the amendment summons in accordance with the final award on the December 4 summons (and the defendant had effectively not opposed placing the costs in the cause below), and the Master did not err in granting leave to amend because the new paragraphs raised factual issues (technical meaning of 試車 and contextual negotiations) appropriate for trial and the defendant had not shown irreparable prejudice from delay or the death of Mr Ng that would justify refusal to amend.
8 Jan 2024

CHU KIT 對 YUNG CHUNG WONG及另一人

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 61
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCSA35/2023

The application for leave to appeal is refused because the applicant failed to demonstrate any legal error or exceedance of the tribunal's jurisdiction; the High Court will not disturb the tribunal's factual findings absent such legal error.
27 Dec 2023

LICKSUN COMPANY LTD v. OCCUPIERS OF THE LAND MARKED "A", "B", "C" AND "D" AND OF THE LAND MARKED "E", "F", "G", "H", "I" AND "J" AT SECTION C OF LOT NO. 1128 IN D.D. 7, LAM TSUEN, TAI PO, N.T., HONG KONG SUBJECT TO LAND SURVEY MORE PARTICULARLY IDENTIFIED IN THE PLAN ATTACHED HERETO

Citation

[2023] HKDC 1804
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ749/2022

A court that has sealed and perfected an order is functus officio and lacks jurisdiction to set it aside except within the established categories (manifest intention, clerical slip, liberty to apply, statutory rules); the present application did not fall within any such category and therefore the Summons to set aside the sealed Order was dismissed.
28 Sept 2023

TO PUI KUI, THE ADMINISTRATRIX OF THE ESTATE OF NG PO SUM, DECEASED v. NG KWOK PIU AND OTHERS

Citation

[2023] HKCA 1108
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV1/2013

The March 2016 Costs Order accurately recorded the manifest intention of the court as expressed in its oral and written reasons; there was no clerical slip or omission in expression that could be corrected under RHC Order 20 r11 or the inherent jurisdiction. A mistaken substantive decision cannot be remedied by the slip rule; the 2nd defendant's remedy was an appeal, which she did not pursue, and her long delay precludes circumvention via the slip rule. Consequently the summonses are dismissed.
28 Sept 2023

TO PUI KUI, THE ADMINISTRATRIX OF THE ESTATE OF NG PO SUM, DECEASED v. NG KWOK PIU AND OTHERS

Citation

[2023] HKCA 1108
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV281/2012

The March 2016 Costs Order accurately recorded the court's manifest intention regarding costs below; there was no accidental slip or omission to correct under RHC Order 20 rule 11 or the inherent jurisdiction. A substantive or contested decision cannot be corrected by the slip rule; the proper remedy was appeal. Accordingly the 2nd defendant's applications were dismissed and she was ordered to pay costs of the application.
22 Sept 2023

YEUNG LAI PING v. SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 2396
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCPI833/2002

The court held it was functus officio with respect to the pre-judgment interest award because the sealed April 2019 judgment contained a detailed formula and no liberty to vary interest was given; therefore the plaintiff's application for enhanced interest on damages was dismissed. However the costs order nisi fell within the court's power to vary and was altered: costs after 1 December 2016 were awarded to the plaintiff on an indemnity basis with interest on costs at 11% from judgment until payment; other ancillary orders (taxation extension, share of defendant's costs, etc.) were made accor…