Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Stay of judgment

Legal area

Court

18 Mar 2024

陳秋妹對 PERSONS IN OCCUPATION OF NO.44-A PO KAT TSAI VILLAGE, FANLING, NEW TERRITORIES, HONG KONG及另一人

Citation

[2024] HKDC 462
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ6662/2020

Service of the amended writ was properly effected by personal delivery and posting; the plaintiff's evidence of transfer of possessory rights was hearsay and legally insufficient (no written transfer as required by Cap 219), whereas the defendant presented a credible arguable defence based on prior possession/tenancy from 2016; accordingly the application for extension of time to appeal and the stay of the registrar's decision were granted because the proposed appeal had a reasonable prospect of success and delay caused no demonstrated prejudice.
14 Oct 2022

CHI YUM BUDDHIST HALL ASSOCIATION LTD v. YU LIK WAI WILLIAM AND OTHERS

Citation

[2022] HKDC 1169
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ642/2019

Applications dismissed because Named Defendants, despite notice, disregarded opportunity to participate at trial and their explanations for absence were inconsistent and unconvincing; they failed to seek practicable alternatives such as VCF, delayed unreasonably in applying to set aside, and did not demonstrate real prospects of success; these factors collectively justified refusal to set aside judgment and refusal of leave to appeal/stay.
11 Apr 2022

楊靜儀對李耀堃

Citation

[2022] HKDC 293
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ4008/2016

Leave to appeal refused because the plaintiff offered no realistic prospect of success: the judge correctly found the defendant the sole beneficial owner absent proven common intention to share; the presumption of advancement and the Gift Declaration supported a gift; plaintiff failed to rebut the presumption or show material error of law or fact warranting appellate intervention; no basis existed to stay the judgment pending criminal investigation.
1 Mar 2017

CHU CHUNG SHING INVESTMENT CO LTD v. LAM CHUNG AND OTHERS

Citation

CHU CHUNG SHING INVESTMENT CO LTD v. LAM CHUNG AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP3456/2016

The 3rd defendant's application was refused because the 127‑day delay in renewing leave was inordinate and inadequately explained (legal aid process and lack of translation do not justify the delay), and the intended appeal had no real prospect of success given the high appellate threshold that factual findings are only overturned if plainly wrong; additionally, the proposed fresh evidence could have been obtained at trial; therefore leave to appeal out of time and a stay were refused and the summons dismissed.
19 Nov 2010

SUN LEGEND INVESTMENTS LTD v. HO YUK WAH DAVID AND OTHERS

Citation

SUN LEGEND INVESTMENTS LTD v. HO YUK WAH DAVID AND OTHERS
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV242/2009

Leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal was granted under section 22(1)(a) Cap.494; security for costs was ordered for the 1st and 2nd Plaintiffs by counterclaim in the sum of $400,000 each; the application for a stay of this Court's judgment was refused because the principal basis for the stay relied on a new argument that had not been argued before this Court and therefore must be left to the Court of Final Appeal to decide whether to entertain it.
18 Jul 2008

GOLDEN METRO CHINA LTD v. THE OWNERS OF THE SHIP OR VESSEL SKY LUCKY

Citation

GOLDEN METRO CHINA LTD v. THE OWNERS OF THE SHIP OR VESSEL SKY LUCKY
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV187/2008

The stay was refused because the judge's factual findings established that the three alleged conditions were either not agreed, uncertain or unenforceable, and there was no reasonable prospect of success on appeal; consequently it was appropriate to allow release of the cash bail and to adjourn the application for security for costs until proper particulars were provided.
18 Jul 2008

\'\'AS\'\' v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION

Citation

\'\'AS\'\' v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV316/2007

The court declared the applicants' detention unlawful after making convention (torture) claims and refused to grant an interim stay of the effect of its judgment; while a court may stay a declaration, such a stay does not negate the judgment's role as this court's authoritative statement of the law, and therefore an interim stay of the judgment's effect was inappropriate in the circumstances.
21 Jan 2004

GOLDEN SCENE CO LTD v. CITY ENTERTAINMENT CORPORATION LTD

Citation

GOLDEN SCENE CO LTD v. CITY ENTERTAINMENT CORPORATION LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2804/2002

The appeal was allowed in part: the Master's stay of the plaintiff's liquidated judgment pending trial of the defendant's unliquidated counterclaim was set aside because the counterclaim arose from a separate and distinct transaction, equitable set-off did not apply and it would be unjust to stay enforcement; specified parts of the RADC alleging duties owed to other Golden Harvest companies and related relief were struck out as unsustainable, but the tortious interference counterclaim was not struck out and will proceed to trial; costs orders were adjusted accordingly.