Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Variation of court order

Legal area

Court

11 Mar 2025

CORNELIS PIETER ALEXANDER v. KD CONCEPT LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2025] HKDC 394
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ5717/2021

The Summons was dismissed because the court could not vary a sealed Security Order (functus officio) and the Variation Application was an abuse of process; the Extension Application failed because the unless order had already taken effect and no relief from sanction was sought as required by the rules, and granting an extension would prejudice trial management; the Discovery Application failed because the Plaintiff’s claim had been dismissed by the unless order and the register was no longer relevant and the application was made late in any event.
24 Jul 2024

RE LAU WANG CHI, BARRY

Citation

[2024] HKCA 712
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV147/2024

The liberty to apply permitted the court to resolve the dispute about the form of security; applying an objective reasonableness test the proposed charge over the Sea Tiger, despite some shortcomings in the valuation evidence, afforded adequate security for the HK$12,900,000 and the court therefore granted the variation to permit the Debtor to procure the charge and associated undertakings; exceptional circumstances under s98(1) were unnecessary to invoke in these circumstances.
3 May 2024

CHINNEY SHUN CHEONG BUILDING SERVICES ENGINEERING LTD (formerly known as CHINNEY E & M (MAINTENANCE) LTD) v. LO KWAI FAN

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 1507
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP629/2023

The court, exercising its jurisdiction under the liberty to apply clause and Order 50 Rule 9A, accepted the valuer's report demonstrating a material fall in market value and, with the defendant's consent, varied the prior sale directions to reduce the minimum sale prices to HK$5,000,000 (secondary market) or HK$6,270,000 (open market).
12 Sept 2023

KONG COLIN CHUNG PING (aka COLIN CHUNG PING KONG), the executor of the estate of KONG WING HONG v. KONG CHUN IP

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 2495
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP202/2021

The consent order contained an express, clear, mechanical mechanism for determining the reserve price (initial reserve of HK$270m with automatic 5% reductions every 98 days). That mechanism required no further 'working out' so the liberty to apply did not authorize the court to alter the substantive agreed reserve. An implied term permitting market‑linked adjustment would contradict the express terms and amount to rewriting the parties' agreement. Therefore the court lacked jurisdiction to reduce the reserve price and the plaintiff's variation application was dismissed.
10 Jan 2023

KWOK LAI KWAN ROSENA v. KWOK BIU AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 17
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1797/2016

The 2nd defendant's application to set aside the costs order was refused because it was out of time and there was no reasonable prospect of success: impecuniosity is not a valid ground, the 2nd defendant had previously engaged in proceedings and maintained denial of the plaintiff's claim, and therefore the original costs incidence stands; the court amended the August 11 2022 order under its slip rule to substitute 'a partner of the Plaintiff's solicitors' for 'the Registrar of the High Court' to reflect current practice, and made no order as to costs for the subsequent summonses.
29 Nov 2021

YE XIUXIA v. YE JINXIANG AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 3927
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP754/2019

The 1st defendant's asserted grounds for a stay (PRC travel ban/Covid restrictions) pre-existed the judgment and therefore do not qualify under Order 45 r11; the matters required by the judgment could be performed without his personal attendance; there was no basis to vary the order regarding appointment of the new administrator; accordingly the stay and variation applications were dismissed and the plaintiff's agreed variation to the held sum was ordered; the 1st defendant was ordered personally to pay the plaintiff's costs of those applications on an indemnity basis.
24 Mar 2021

吳對余及另一人

Citation

[2021] HKCA 383
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP65/2020

The Court refused leave to appeal because the application was filed significantly late without explanation, the applicant failed to show a clerical error or accidental slip in the 2009 order (the evidence relied on was insufficient and the change sought would alter substantive obligations), and therefore there was no real prospect of success to justify granting out‑of‑time leave.
3 Feb 2021

LAM CHOK LAI AND ANOTHER v. THE OFFICIAL RECEIVER AND TRUSTEE IN BANKRUPTCY OF LAM CHOK WAI, A BANKRUPT AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 260
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP3041/2016

The court accepted the plaintiffs' evidence of up-to-date valuations and market attempts as demonstrating that the proposed reduced reserve price and the independent HK$280m offer reflected the realistic market value; accordingly the court varied the earlier sale order under the Partition Ordinance to permit sale on those terms with limited opportunity for the objector to file an expert report within seven days, and made ancillary directions and costs orders to effect an immediate sale and end the co-ownership.
6 Dec 2018

NEW CENTURY CREDIT SERVICES CO LTD v. LEUNG WAI PUI AND OTHERS

Citation

[2018] HKDC 1515
Court

District Court
Case number

DCMP2610/2017

The summons was dismissed because service on the 1st defendant was not shown to be valid so the court would not make an order detrimental to him in his absence; the court concluded it lacked jurisdiction under Order 31 Rule 2 to vary substantive entitlements by shifting costs solely to the 1st defendant; and the valuation evidence was insufficient to establish a market increase justifying raising the minimum sale price from HK$4,000,000 to HK$5,500,000, especially given the original order's safeguards and the repossession basis of the initial figure.
30 Aug 2016

KOMAL PATEL AND OTHERS v. CHRIS AU AND OTHERS

Citation

KOMAL PATEL AND OTHERS v. CHRIS AU AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA183/2014

The court exercised its discretion to limit the scope of the discovery order. It found no justification to direct disclosure to any other parties beyond those relevant to the pleaded issues and replaced the word 'another' in paragraph 50 with (i) the 1st plaintiff, 3rd plaintiff or Yew; and/or (ii) bank accounts held or controlled by the 1st plaintiff, the 3rd plaintiff or Yew. The court ordered compliance within 7 days and declined to expand discovery as sought by the 1st defendant because that would be a fishing expedition and impose undue burden at an advanced stage of proceedings.