Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Hong Kong Case Law

Absence of defendant

  • 15 Jul 2025

    NG TIN YEUNG v. LO SHUK FA trading as LOYAL DECORATION CO.

    Citation
    [2025] HKDC 1094
    Court
    District Court
    Case number
    DCPI2356/2017

    The court accepted the plaintiff's unchallenged evidence that he was assigned to work and instructed to use the defendant's tile cutter and that inadequate equipment was provided; the defendant adduced no evidence and therefore failed to discharge the burden to establish contributory negligence; liability in negligence was established and damages were assessed on the medical and vocational evidence and comparative authorities.

  • 30 Apr 2024

    MAXIM’S CATERERS LTD v. MAX JOY ASIA LTD

    Citation
    [2024] HKDC 660
    Court
    District Court
    Case number
    DCCJ6137/2019

    Defendant was contractually liable to reimburse café expenses and pay monthly management fees and therefore liable for the invoiced sum; sales proceeds could not be legally set off; clause 7.0 entitled manager to forfeit the cash deposit as security; because plaintiff abandoned any claim above HK$3,000,000 the court awarded judgment for HK$3,000,000; defendant’s counterclaim was dismissed because of the defendant’s absence and inadmissibility of its evidence; costs awarded on an indemnity basis and interest ordered from date of writ.

  • 23 Dec 2020

    律政司司長 訴 袁志成

    Citation
    [2020] HKCA 1054
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CAAR6/2020

    The trial sentence of six weeks was manifestly inadequate because the trial judge materially underestimated the overall gravity of the violent illegal assembly and the respondent's contributory role; applying settled precedent the appropriate starting point was 15 months, reduced by one‑third for a guilty plea to 10 months and further adjusted to 9 months to reflect time already served; the Court therefore quashed the original sentence and substituted nine months' imprisonment and ordered re‑arrest to serve the sentence.

  • 11 Sept 2017

    AXHT CO LTD v. SOE KIN FAI

    Citation
    AXHT CO LTD v. SOE KIN FAI
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCMP1223/2017

    P proved it was induced by fraud and therefore had an equitable proprietary interest in the Sum; service on the absent defendant was valid and it was appropriate in justice to hear the uncontested application in his absence; given WWL's disavowal and the bank's neutral stance, a vesting order under s52 Trustee Ordinance vesting the right to the Sum in the plaintiff was appropriate to prevent the funds remaining in limbo.

  • 26 Apr 1989

    ATTORNEY GENERAL v. WONG YAU CHUNG

    Citation
    ATTORNEY GENERAL v. WONG YAU CHUNG
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCMA293/1989

    The magistrate's disposal by estreating bail and taking no further action when only the complainant appeared contravened s.18A of the Magistrates Ordinance; the order was unlawful, the appeal is allowed, the order set aside and the case must be reheard by another magistrate.