Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Withdrawal/discontinuance

Legal area

Court

4 Mar 2025

MWANGI RUTH WANJIRU v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 616
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1483/2024

Because the applicant validly filed a Notice of Discontinuance and there was no evidence of coercion or any outstanding matter, the Court properly acceded to the withdrawal and dismissed the application for leave to apply for judicial review, in line with the authority in Manik Md Mahamudun Nabi [2022] HKCA 471.
4 Feb 2025

SHAM CHUNG HEI v. CHUM YAU FONG, DAVID, A REVISING OFFICER AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 518
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL2367/2023

The judge concluded there was no sufficient reason to depart from the ordinary rule that an applicant who discontinues judicial review proceedings should pay costs; having considered reasonableness and proportionality and duplication across two related actions, the court ordered the Applicant to pay the costs of the 2nd Putative Respondent and the 1st and 2nd Putative Interested Parties, summarily assessed at $35,000 per action, totalling $70,000.
15 Jan 2025

WANG SHUITING AND OTHERS v. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 352
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL687/2022

The applicants must pay the respondent's costs. The ordinary rule that costs follow the event applies; the applicants discontinued after their primary arguments had been finally rejected by the Court of Final Appeal in Tam CFA, there were no exceptional circumstances warranting departure from the rule, and therefore the court exercises its discretion to order the applicants to pay the Commissioner's costs, to be taxed if not agreed.
3 Aug 2023

TRUONG VAN QUANG v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 1955
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL2070/2020

The application for leave was dismissed because the applicant himself sought to discontinue the proceedings and, following the authority in Re Manik, where nothing remains outstanding the correct disposition is dismissal of the leave application.
3 Nov 2021

CHINA BAOLI TECHNOLOGIES HOLDINGS LTD (formerly known as REX GLOBAL ENTERTAINMENT HOLDINGS LTD) v. ORIENT EQUAL INTERNATIONAL GROUP LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

[2021] HKCA 1609
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV34/2018

The appeal was rendered academic by the defendants' decision to withdraw the third party proceedings; therefore the defendants, as the withdrawing/conceding party, must bear SVK's costs of the appeal and specified interlocutory proceedings, to be taxed on a party-and-party basis if not agreed; indemnity costs were not awarded.
8 Apr 2021

NGUYEN VAN TUNG, ALIAS NGUYEN VANTUNG v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD/ NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 885
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL19/2021

Applicant unequivocally requested cancellation of his leave application and demonstrated no intention to proceed; the court acceded to that request and dismissed the application for leave to apply for judicial review.
24 Jul 2017

YUAN CHU CHEN AND OTHERS v. CHEN MIN CHUN AND OTHERS

Citation

YUAN CHU CHEN AND OTHERS v. CHEN MIN CHUN AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1714/2015

The 3rd plaintiff's amended statement of claim was struck out because it was plainly and obviously unsustainable: essential factual elements were absent (no unregistered bearer shares or share certificates in existence as pleaded), key allegations lacked necessary particulars (no allegation the 1st defendant effected the alleged assignment; no pleaded agreement or overt acts to support conspiracy), and particulars cannot cure inherent defects, therefore striking out was appropriate and preferable to allowing withdrawal.
8 Dec 2015

COQUEEN CO LTD v. CHUI WAI KWAN AND OTHERS

Citation

COQUEEN CO LTD v. CHUI WAI KWAN AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP438/2010

The court found the sale to Leading Win was not a settlement between Coqueen and Hing and that circumstances (notably Coqueen's change from seeking a discount for unfair prejudice to accepting a conventional minority discount and the identical unit price paid for all siblings' shares) constituted an acknowledgment of likely defeat. Coqueen failed to discharge the burden to show a proper basis to depart from the general rule; accordingly Coqueen must pay Hing's costs of the petition and costs of the summonses as ordered.
1 Nov 2002

CANO-SHEARER, ANNE AND OTHERS v. CATHAY PACIFIC AIRWAYS LTD.

Citation

CANO-SHEARER, ANNE AND OTHERS v. CATHAY PACIFIC AIRWAYS LTD.
Court

District Court
Case number

DCEO1/2001

The court refused a split trial because the defendant had established an arguable defence that each plaintiff voluntarily retired at 40, meaning post-retirement facts are relevant to both liability and quantum so there is no clear demarcation; the Defence amendments were allowed because no irreparable prejudice would result; plaintiffs must provide full numerical particulars now as there is no justification to delay; the 1st Plaintiff was granted leave to withdraw but her conduct (non‑disclosure of prior Philippine proceedings and inconsistent positions) rendered her claim frivolous or at lea…
12 Apr 1983

DOW CORNING ASIA LTD v. THE HONG KONG LAND CO LTD

Citation

DOW CORNING ASIA LTD v. THE HONG KONG LAND CO LTD
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDLA9/1982

Leave to withdraw the tenant's application for a new tenancy is granted; statutory backdating of a new rent under s.119M only arises where an order for a new tenancy is made and thus cannot operate where the application is withdrawn before such order; the Tribunal has no express statutory power under Part IV to fix an interim fair market rent or to impose such a payment as a condition of leave to withdraw; no costs awarded under s.119R as conduct was not frivolous or vexatious.