Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Hong Kong Case Law

Stay

  • 22 Apr 2026

    VERMEERBERGEN PETER ALFRED v. SWISSTRIBE LTD

    Citation
    [2026] HKCFI 2353
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCLA36/2015

    The Master lawfully exercised jurisdiction to adjourn the callover and defer any determination as to the scope of documents in order to hear the Director of Legal Aid; no substantive decision to stay or waive the examination was made, and the appropriate course is to permit the Master to determine the procedural directions at the adjourned hearing. The appeal is dismissed.

  • 9 Aug 2023

    RE PROMAN INTERNATIONAL LTD

    Citation
    [2023] HKCA 964
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CACV247/2022

    The Court dismissed the stay applications because any overlap between the New Evidence Applications and the Rule 99L Application was limited, there was no novel legal point necessitating reliance on the Judge's forthcoming ruling, and the Court of Appeal would conduct an independent assessment of the new evidence; accordingly no case-management justification for a stay and costs were awarded to BOC in the sum of HK$250,000.

  • 16 Jan 2023

    LAU MUK FAT (SUING AS THE MANAGER OF LAU SHAU WO TSO) v. WONG KWOK WA

    Citation
    [2023] HKCFI 135
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCA897/2012

    The court exercised its discretion and ordered that: the costs of WKW's consolidation application (including costs of the hearing on costs) be costs in the cause of the respective actions; the costs of Madam Mok's consolidation application (including costs of the hearing on costs) be costs in the cause of the consolidated action; the costs of amendments to pleadings ordered are costs in the cause of the consolidated action; and in relation to the Strike Out Application, costs up to the call-over hearing on 16 December 2021 are to the 1006 Dings to be taxed if not agreed with certificate for c…

  • 16 Jan 2023

    LAU MUK FAT (SUING AS THE MANAGER OF LAU SHAU WO TSO) v. WONG KWOK WA AND OTHERS

    Citation
    [2023] HKCFI 135
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCA1879/2011

    Having considered the history and complexity of the consolidated proceedings and the conduct of the parties, no party was sufficiently culpable to warrant departure from the usual practice; accordingly costs of WKW's application, Madam Mok's application and the ordered amendments are to be costs in the cause of the respective/consolidated actions; costs in relation to the Strike Out Application are allocated to the 1006 Dings up to the call-over hearing on 16 December 2021 (to be taxed if not agreed with certificate for counsel), with no order as to costs thereafter.

  • 11 Nov 2022

    CONVOY COLLATERAL LTD v. CHO KWAI CHEE (also known as CHO KWAI CHEE ROY) AND OTHERS

    Citation
    [2022] HKCFI 3406
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCA399/2018

    The application to try HCA 463/2021 immediately after HCA 399/2018 and to admit evidence from HCA 399/2018 into HCA 463/2021 was dismissed because the degree of overlap was not sufficiently substantial at this stage to justify sequencing or a stay; the application was premature given lack of discovery and identified witnesses/documents, and sequencing would cause unfair delay and complexity to the defamation claim (the overlap was principally limited to potential impact on damages, which alone did not justify the orders sought).

  • 18 Oct 2022

    LAU MUK FAT (SUING AS THE MANAGER OF LAU SHAU WO TSO) v. WONG KWOK WA AND OTHERS

    Citation
    [2022] HKCFI 3166
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCA802/2019

    The recorder exercised discretion to refuse WKW’s broad consolidation because the Main Actions were trial-ready while the Subsequent Actions were at an early stage, the subject matters involved different chronological events with separate evidential matrices, and consolidation would cause significant prejudice, delay and disproportionate costs to the Tso and many defendants; however the court ordered consolidation of the two Subsequent Actions (HCA 802/2019 and HCMP 944/2018) because they concern the same later events and are at comparable stages; HCA 1006/2017 was not struck out but stayed g…

  • 18 Oct 2022

    MOK MEI LING REKEI v. LAU MUK FAT

    Citation
    [2022] HKCFI 3166
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCMP944/2018

    The court exercised its case management discretion: dismissed Wong Kwok Wa's application for broad consolidation because the Main Actions were trial-ready while the Subsequent Actions were at a nascent stage, consolidation would cause prejudice and delay and increase costs; granted Madam Mok's narrower consolidation of HCA802/2019 with HCMP944/2018 (lead HCA802) because those matters overlap and are at similar procedural stages; refused to strike out HCA1006/2017 but ordered it stayed given expiry of writ against Wong and the registered protective writs warranted preservation rather than dism…

  • 18 Oct 2022

    LAU MUK FAT (SUING AS THE MANAGER OF LAU SHAU WO TSO) v. WONG KWOK WA

    Citation
    [2022] HKCFI 3166
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCA897/2012

    Consolidation of all Main Actions with Subsequent Actions would cause disproportionate prejudice and delay because the Main Actions were ready for trial while the Subsequent Actions were nascent and concerned later events; therefore WKW’s global consolidation application was dismissed. However, consolidation of the two Subsequent Actions (HCA802/2019 and HCMP944/2018) was appropriate given overlap and early stage. HCA1006/2017 was not struck out but stayed because of its protective registration and overlap with later proceedings. Case management orders were made to progress the Consolidated A…

  • 18 Oct 2022

    LAU MUK FAT (SUING AS THE MANAGER OF LAU SHAU WO TSO) v. WONG KWOK WA AND OTHERS

    Citation
    [2022] HKCFI 3166
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCA1006/2017

    Recorder refused WKW's global consolidation application because the Main Actions were trial-ready while Subsequent Actions were nascent; consolidation would prejudice the Plaintiff by delaying ready trials, increase complexity and costs by involving many defendants and fresh evidence; WKW's application dismissed. The Court ordered consolidation of HCA 802/2019 and HCMP 944/2018 (as they concern the same subsequent events and are at similar stages), refused stay of Subsequent Actions, and ordered HCA 1006/2017 stayed (not struck out) given protective land registry writ and overlap with HCA 802…

  • 13 May 2022

    TARGET INSURANCE CO LTD v. NG YU AND OTHERS

    Citation
    [2022] HKCFI 1362
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCA305/2022

    Court granted a conditional interim stay of paragraphs 7 and 8 of the Order but varied paragraph 7 to increase the individual disclosure threshold to HK$200,000 because D1 had already disclosed assets with an estimated value exceeding the Sum and admitted beneficial ownership; the stay was justified on balance provided conditions (periodic sealed affirmations, updates and liberty to apply to lift) to protect plaintiff's ability to police the injunction and to avoid irremediable prejudice to the defendant.