Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Unless orders

Legal area

Court

12 May 2026

ABDUL JABBAR v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD

Citation

[2026] HKCA 935
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV520/2025

Relief from sanction was refused because the summons was filed outside the 14-day time limit, no explanation was provided for the failure to comply with the Unless Order despite receipt of ordinary post, the court had already granted an extension and made the consequences clear, and the underlying appeal was unarguable; accordingly the court declined to exercise its discretion to grant relief.
27 Feb 2026

GORDON CHAN v. CHAN CI KA CINDY

Citation

[2026] HKDC 377
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ5024/2023

Because the plaintiff abandoned the Transfer Summons at the last working day before the hearing after the defendant had incurred significant and wasted costs in preparing to oppose it, the court exercised its discretion to order the plaintiff to pay the defendant's costs of the Transfer Summons; the Stay Summons and Unless Order Summons costs remain in the cause; immediate summary assessment was refused because the interlocutory matters were heard together and apportionment was unclear, so taxation in the ordinary course is required.
17 Dec 2025

BEIJING SONGXIANGHU ARCHITECTURAL DECORATION ENGINEERING CO LTD v. KITTY KAM ALSO KNOWN AS WANG YUZHI

Citation

[2025] HKCA 1134
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP247/2024

The Court of Appeal held that the judge did not err in principle or law in making the unless order and entering judgment on default: the unless order was a permissible, proportionate last resort to enforce the Repatriation Order in light of the defendant's flagrant, contumelious non‑compliance and abusive litigation conduct; the defendant could appeal as of right because the judgment was entered pursuant to the unless order; the appeal was dismissed and the costs award was affirmed.
29 Jul 2022

TIGER RESORT ASIA LITD v. KAZUO OKADA AND OTHERS

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 2289
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA3017/2017

The court ruled the Private Investigation Reports admissible and placed weight on them; concluded the 1st Defendant failed to comply with the Disclosure Order and the Unless Order in relation to the 3rd Sum because his explanations were inconsistent and inherently improbable; nonetheless, after weighing proportionality and other factors under Order 2 rule 5, the court granted the 1st Defendant relief from sanction and an extension to apply, thereby refusing the plaintiff's application to enter judgment at this stage and instead ordering relief as set out in the relief summons.
10 Feb 2022

SUNLIGHT TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT LTD v. AGP (FAR EAST) LTD

Citation

[2022] HKDC 134
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ4867/2007

The appeal was allowed and both the defendant's counterclaim and the plaintiff's claim were struck out for want of prosecution because 11.5 years of complete inaction was inordinate and inexcusable, produced a substantial risk that a fair trial is no longer possible (witness death, advanced age and memory loss, inability to contact witnesses), and both parties' prolonged dormancy amounted to abuses of process; costs and costs directions were ordered.
4 Nov 2021

CHEUNG SAU CHU ROSANNA v. 魯珉軒 AND OTHERS

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 3356
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCPI497/2020

The master's imposition of an 'unless' order was a proper exercise of case management powers to ensure the defendants receive a final deadline for the plaintiff's pleaded case; the appeal is allowed only to the limited extent of varying the deadline for medical reports to 1 February 2022 not on an 'unless' basis, while the remainder of the master's order is upheld.
12 Mar 2020

SOEMARTO SULISTIO AND ANOTHER v. STUKAN, YETTY FANG AND OTHERS

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 292
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAP10/2018

The second unless order required substantive (not merely timely) compliance; the plaintiffs provided predominantly illusory, vague or reserved answers that failed to particularise core allegations (mental/medical conditions, instances of threats, persons involved); plaintiffs did not apply for relief from sanction or discharge the burden to justify non-compliance and gave no adequate explanation; the statement of claim was therefore strikeable as revealing no reasonable cause, being scandalous/vexatious/abusive and not curable by amendment; accordingly the sanction in the unless order was pro…
15 Mar 2018

GLORY SKY FINANCE LTD v. CHEN JIANHUA AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 578
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP2482/2014

Judge allowed amendment of the plaintiff\'s irregularity summons under Order 20 r.8; refused to set aside Master K Lo\'s order for irregularity because the complaint of judicial error was an appealable error of law; granted plaintiff relief from the sanction under Order 2 r.4‑5 because non‑compliance was not intentional or contumelious, the immediate cause was lack of consensus and carelessness rather than bad faith, and refusing relief would be disproportionate given consequences; but on separate weighing under Order 2 r.3 the judge found the plaintiff\'s repeated procedural flouting and lac…
12 Jan 2018

BRUCE JAMES STINSON v. GU MING GAO

Citation

[2018] HKCA 10
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV61/2017

The Court allowed the plaintiff leave to amend the pleading to include models improved, modified or developed from the partnership model and granted leave to adduce expert evidence (each party up to two experts). The Court found the defendant acted in flagrant breach of the Discovery Order and Varied Discovery Order by supplying only an encrypted USB and erasing originals; encryption and erasure were not credible or in good faith. As redress the Court ordered production of a clean unencrypted copy of the Model within 28 days and directed that specified defence paragraphs relevant to liability…
24 Feb 2017

FINANCIAL HOLDINGS (BVI) LTD v. CHAD C. HOLM AND OTHERS

Citation

FINANCIAL HOLDINGS (BVI) LTD v. CHAD C. HOLM AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2545/2016

A written consent extension under Order 3 r 5(3) RHC is valid and the court may take such consensual extensions into account when later considering an unless order; on the facts a 21 day extension to 6 March 2017 was justified and should be granted without an unless order, with costs of the application of HKD800 payable by the 2nd Defendant (order nisi).