Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Withdrawal of claims

Legal area

Court

31 Dec 2025

ERMIATI v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 6470
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL664/2022

Because the applicant failed to apply to the Director to re-open her non-refoulement claim under s37ZG(3), did not return the required Non-refoulement Claim Form within the prescribed period despite reminders, provided no pleaded grounds or explanation for seeking judicial review after a multi-year delay, there was no legal or procedural basis to grant leave and the application for leave must be dismissed.
29 Aug 2013

李月芬對葉利明

Citation

李月芬對葉利明
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDPD1236/2013

The Tribunal accepted the landlord's bank records showing cheque payments up to 2 April 2013 and found the respondent failed to prove the alleged two-year oral renewals or the payment defenses; the landlord's termination notice validly ended the month-to-month tenancy; accordingly possession and rent from 18 April 2013 were awarded and the respondent's counterclaim dismissed.
1 Aug 2013

RBA FAR EAST LTD v. YUEN CHAK HANG EDWARD AND OTHERS

Citation

RBA FAR EAST LTD v. YUEN CHAK HANG EDWARD AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCL3/2011

Balancing the evidence on affidavit and submissions, the court found defendants did not discharge the burden of showing exceptional circumstances to justify indemnity costs or to displace the prima facie costs consequences of the sanctioned offer; accordingly the usual order prevails and a costs order nisi was made in favour of the plaintiff to be taxed on a party and party basis.
7 Sept 2011

TOP ONE INTERNATIONAL (CHINA) PROPERTY GROUP CO LTD AND ANOTHER v. TOP ONE PROPERTY GROUP LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

TOP ONE INTERNATIONAL (CHINA) PROPERTY GROUP CO LTD AND ANOTHER v. TOP ONE PROPERTY GROUP LTD AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1244/2009

Amendment to plead misrepresentation/estoppel and counterclaim was refused because the pleaded statements amounted to opinion/future intention without necessary particulars or evidence of dishonesty and were therefore legally defective; the court has no power to vary contractual powers of receivers appointed by the chargee and refused the representation application because the 2nd Defendant had a real conflict of interest with the 1st Plaintiff and there was no real conflict between receivers and the 1st Plaintiff; the injunction was refused because there were no serious issues to be tried on…

Hong Kong Case Law

ERMIATI v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

李月芬 對 葉利明

RBA FAR EAST LTD v. YUEN CHAK HANG EDWARD AND OTHERS

TOP ONE INTERNATIONAL (CHINA) PROPERTY GROUP CO LTD AND ANOTHER v. TOP ONE PROPERTY GROUP LTD AND OTHERS

李月芬對葉利明