Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Hong Kong Case Law

Summons

  • 15 Dec 2022

    TSANG CHUI LEUNG 對 THE INDEPENDENT SCHOOLS FOUNDATION ACADEMY LTD

    Citation
    [2022] HKDC 1416
    Court
    District Court
    Case number
    DCPI325/2012

    The court held that the plaintiff's second summons was in breach of Order 58 rule 2(4A) because a further application for leave had to be made to the Court of Appeal within 14 days of the refusal; accordingly the second summons was revoked and the plaintiff ordered to pay the defendant's costs, with assessment by the court if the parties cannot agree.

  • 4 Sept 2020

    C, JAM v. C, S (nee P)

    Citation
    [2020] HKFC 183
    Court
    Family Court
    Case number
    FCMC13708/2018

    The judge exercised discretion: there is no order as to costs up to and including 10 June 2020 because by then the husband had substantively complied with the wife's summons; thereafter the wife must pay the husband's costs of the original 21 June 2019 summons and the 13 July 2020 hearing, to be agreed or taxed on a party and party basis with a certificate for counsel, but enforcement of those costs is stayed until after the ancillary relief hearing or by earlier agreement or further order.

  • 25 Feb 2013

    CHIN LING INVESTMENT LTD v. THE GENERAL OF THE SALVATION ARMY

    Citation
    CHIN LING INVESTMENT LTD v. THE GENERAL OF THE SALVATION ARMY
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCA1/2012

    Costs were assessed on the party and party basis as previously ordered; specific time and amounts were allowed and disallowed as detailed, producing assessed costs of HKD187900 for the defendant and HKD40347 for the plaintiff, with a net payment of HKD147553 due from the plaintiff to the defendant; post-hearing ex parte material was held irrelevant to the assessment and no costs were ordered for correspondence relating to it.

  • 30 Nov 2012

    DAIMLER AG (FORMERLY MERCEDES-BENZ AQ) v. LEIDUCK, HERBERT HEINZ HORST AND ANOTHER

    Citation
    DAIMLER AG (FORMERLY MERCEDES-BENZ AQ) v. LEIDUCK, HERBERT HEINZ HORST AND ANOTHER
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCA4089/1994

    The court exercised its discretion: it dismissed the defendants\' summons of 20 August 2012; ordered the witness statement of Vladimir Khvalei dated 31 August 2012 to be struck out; granted the plaintiff\'s summons of 21 November 2012 in terms of paragraphs 1–5; and made specified costs orders nisi, including certification for two counsel where stated and denial of counsel fees where stated.

  • 11 Feb 2008

    HUMMINGBIRD MUSIC LTD v. DINO ACCONCI AND ANOTHER

    Citation
    HUMMINGBIRD MUSIC LTD v. DINO ACCONCI AND ANOTHER
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCA836/2007

    Because the defendants did not demonstrate compliance with urgent requests or provide reliable evidence of an oral agreement to restrain issuance of the summons, and notification of payment was not conveyed to the plaintiff's solicitors in time, the court exercised its discretion to order the defendants to pay the plaintiff's costs of the summons on a party and party basis and to make a gross assessment of those costs at $5,000.

  • 14 Feb 1995

    ATTORNEY GENERAL v. TANG YUEN LIN

    Citation
    ATTORNEY GENERAL v. TANG YUEN LIN
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCMA1300/1994

    A summons served in a language the defendant does not understand is not automatically a nullity; the deficiency can be cured if, within a reasonable time, full particulars are given in a language the defendant understands (including oral explanation by a magistrate or other authorized person) and the defendant is afforded an opportunity to prepare his defence; absent demonstrated prejudice, the later explanation cured the defect in this case, so the magistrate erred in dismissing the information.