Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Hong Kong Case Law

Absolute charge

  • 19 Sept 2025

    林馬光 對 警務處長及積金局

    Citation
    [2025] HKCA 835
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CACV331/2024

    The appeal notice was invalid because permission to appeal under s14AA was required and not obtained; the appellant failed to show any arguable prospect of success on the merits of an appeal against the absolute charge or the refusal of his applications; alleged delays or failures by judicial officers to give directions within the appellant's asserted time limits did not invalidate proceedings; the nine writs seeking registration of a struck-out claim were abusive and were revoked; the appellant was ordered to pay the first defendant's costs assessed at HK$41,767.

  • 15 Jul 2025

    馮承宗 對 蔡景紅

    Citation
    [2025] HKCFI 3269
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCMP2129/2024

    The application to remove the plaintiff's legal representatives is dismissed because the defendant failed to demonstrate unlawful or improper conduct sufficient to justify the rare exercise of the court's inherent jurisdiction; the law firm acted within the plaintiff's rights under the absolute charge and no prior court sale order was required; therefore the defendant's application lacked an effective basis.

  • 10 Apr 2025

    海德國際財務有限公司 對 佘紀輝前名佘高湧

    Citation
    [2025] HKDC 536
    Court
    District Court
    Case number
    DCCJ3283/2023

    Appeal dismissed because the defendant had admitted the claim in his Acknowledgement of Service and Form 16, the court properly registered judgment after scrutinising the plaintiff's revised claim under Order 13A r10, the defendant failed to discharge the burden to oppose the absolute charging order, and the matters he raised (inability to pay and sentimental value of the property) do not suffice to set aside the charging order at this stage.

  • 12 May 2014

    李寶榮 對 施華芬

    Citation
    李寶榮 對 施華芬
    Court
    District Court
    Case number
    DCMP1741/2013

    The court exercised discretion to permit a short extension to file the late notice of appeal but, on the merits, refused to admit the fifth affidavit as fresh evidence under Ladd v Marshall and upheld the registrar's orders: the sale order was valid given the absolute charge orders and the District Court had jurisdiction because the property's ratesable value was HK$88,000; the request to transfer to the High Court failed; the defendant's subpoenas were properly set aside; the appeal was dismissed and costs awarded to the plaintiff.