Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Transfer to court of first instance

Legal area

Court

31 Aug 2017

CHEUNG CHI WAI t/a CHI FUNG ENGINEERING CO v. CHI FUNG ENGINEERING LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

CHEUNG CHI WAI t/a CHI FUNG ENGINEERING CO v. CHI FUNG ENGINEERING LTD AND OTHERS
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ1697/2016

The District Court does not have jurisdiction to hear trade mark infringement claims under the Trade Marks Ordinance because the Ordinance contemplates the Court of First Instance as the appropriate court and no provision confers such jurisdiction on the District Court; however the District Court retains jurisdiction over passing off claims within its statutory monetary limit.
4 Aug 2017

李濙余對李智揚又名李智陽

Citation

李濙余對李智揚又名李智陽
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ4974/2014

The District Court lacked jurisdiction because the total value of the deceased's estate, including bank deposits and real property (228 ground and 228 sixth-floor with roof and domestic properties), exceeded the District Court monetary limits in s37(2)(a); accordingly the District Court was required to transfer the plaintiff's claim and the defendant's counterclaim to the High Court under s41(1) (and s42 for the whole case).
9 Mar 2015

HO KWOK WAI AND ANOTHER v. 陳雲

Citation

HO KWOK WAI AND ANOTHER v. 陳雲
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ955/2013

The court found that, although not clearly pleaded, a properly amended counterclaim could claim damages or relief tied to half the property's value which would exceed the District Court's monetary jurisdiction (thus meeting s41(3) DCO), and that there was substantial factual and legal overlap with the High Court action such that transfer to the Court of First Instance (and hearing the matters together or consolidated) would save costs and time; accordingly the action is to be transferred.
5 Aug 2013

WAN CHI HING v. LAU WAI FAN t/a FAN’S TRADING CO

Citation

WAN CHI HING v. LAU WAI FAN t/a FAN’S TRADING CO
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ1673/2006

Where pleadings and disclosed documents show the claim as framed exceeds the District Court monetary jurisdiction and there is no abuse or conclusive contradiction at interlocutory stage, the District Court must transfer the actions to the Court of First Instance; applied here, the Main Actions and related Harbour Base Actions were transferred and listed to be heard together, and District Court trial dates vacated.
10 Mar 2008

WONG YU CHO ROLLY t/a THE HONG KONG MUSEUM OF STONE SCULPTURE & ASIAN ART v. LAM KWOK MAN

Citation

WONG YU CHO ROLLY t/a THE HONG KONG MUSEUM OF STONE SCULPTURE & ASIAN ART v. LAM KWOK MAN
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ5422/2006

Defendant failed to establish abuse of process or other relevant grounds justifying striking out or staying the District Court claims; interlocutory costs for the Amended Summons should follow the event because the substantive reliefs were dismissed and the costs issue does not turn on the ultimate merits; accordingly the Costs Order Nisi is made absolute and the Costs Summons is dismissed.
1 Nov 2005

PROVIDENT COMMERCIAL INVESTMENT LTD v. THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF PROVIDENT CENTRE AND OTHERS

Citation

PROVIDENT COMMERCIAL INVESTMENT LTD v. THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF PROVIDENT CENTRE AND OTHERS
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV79/2005

The Lands Tribunal had jurisdiction to determine whether the areas were common parts because that requires interpretation of the DMC and plans; such interpretation does not amount to rendering void or substantially varying proprietary rights under s.45(3) BMO (rectification of plans is procedural and distinct from variation of rights); PCIL's jurisdictional challenge therefore failed; this court declined to order transfer to the Court of First Instance because PCIL did not ask the Tribunal to exercise its discretion to transfer, offered no explanation for that omission and there was no change…
16 Aug 2005

OLDHAM, LI & NIE, SOLICITORS v. WONG LIN CHOOI

Citation

OLDHAM, LI & NIE, SOLICITORS v. WONG LIN CHOOI
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ5076/2004

No application under s.67 LPO had been made so taxation issues were not engaged; the Defendant failed to raise triable issues that the Master could consider, therefore the Master correctly entered summary judgment for $208,661.00; the District Court has jurisdiction under s.32(1) and transfer to the Court of First Instance was properly refused.
10 May 2005

DéCOR FLOORS ENGINEERING LTD v. WING HONG CONTRACTORS LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

DéCOR FLOORS ENGINEERING LTD v. WING HONG CONTRACTORS LTD AND ANOTHER
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ31/2003

The court restrained the arbitration and retained jurisdiction of the TP Proceedings because (1) the third party counterclaim constitutes a true equitable set-off: it flows from the same dealings and transactions as the third party claim and there is no manifest injustice in allowing set-off; (2) there is a real risk of oppressive parallel proceedings, issue estoppel and unfairness (including serious malicious falsehood/fraud concerns) if arbitration continued in parallel; and (3) the strike out/stay application failed because the counterclaim is not plain and unarguable and pleading it is no…
10 May 2005

WOLIK LTD v. WING HONG CONTRACTORS LTD

Citation

WOLIK LTD v. WING HONG CONTRACTORS LTD
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ6060/2003

The court held that Tai Fong's counterclaim and proposed defences amounted to a true equitable set‑off inseparably connected to Wing Hong's third‑party claim; on balance of factors, including the risk of parallel proceedings, potential issue‑estoppel and the seriousness of fraud/malicious falsehood allegations, it was just and necessary to restrain the arbitration and allow the court proceedings to proceed. Consequently the strike out/stay application by Wing Hong failed, the arbitration was restrained pending determination of TP Proceedings, TP Proceedings were transferred to the Court of Fi…
13 Oct 1998

LEUNG MUK LAN v. COUNTRY CLUB PUBLISHING CO. LTD.

Citation

LEUNG MUK LAN v. COUNTRY CLUB PUBLISHING CO. LTD.
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP4851/1998

The Acting Principal Adjudicator had jurisdiction to transfer and there was material and compelling reason to transfer the applicant's claims to the Court of First Instance; the adjudicator's exercise of discretion was not shown to be plainly wrong, therefore the review application must be dismissed.