Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Appeal from registrar

Legal area

Court

16 Dec 2025

THE COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE v. DRACO HUMAN RESOURCES MANAGEMENT LTD

Citation

[2025] HKDC 2120
Court

District Court
Case number

DCTC192/2025

The appeal is allowed in respect of the pre-judgment interest rate because the statutory scheme in section 71(11) IRO and binding practice in tax recovery cases support awarding pre-judgment interest at the judgment debt rate absent exceptional circumstances, and the defendant's asserted grounds did not amount to such circumstances; accordingly the Registrar's award of interest at best lending rate plus 1% was set aside and replaced with judgment-rate interest for the relevant period.
30 Apr 2024

CORNHILL ENTERPRISES LTD 對詹士平及另一人

Citation

[2024] HKDC 612
Court

District Court
Case number

DCMP3252/2021

The court upheld the registrar's order setting aside the default judgment because on a provisional assessment at rehearing the first defendant produced cogent documentary evidence (notably a rent receipt signed by Ng Wai Hung, matching a registered owner's name) which gives the defence a realistic prospect of success; the plaintiff's attacks on the evidential weight of the documents did not justify refusing relief at this interlocutory stage. Accordingly the plaintiff's appeal was dismissed and the registrar's order maintained, with a provisional costs order in favour of the first defendant.
6 Apr 2022

CYBEX GmbH v. SYTO CONSULTANTS AND INVESTMENT LTD

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 972
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP75/2020

The Non-use Application succeeds because Syto failed to prove genuine use of the registered device mark in Hong Kong after 12 December 2014 and the period of non-use is fixed as commencing 13 December 2014; the Appeal against the Registrar's refusal to invalidate the registration is dismissed because the Hearing Officer was entitled to find on the balance of probabilities that the Dickinson Group had authorization/consent from Cybex for the 2011 filings and s53(6) precludes invalidation on the copyright/earlier-rights ground; bad faith was not established.
6 Apr 2022

RE AN APPLICATION BY CYBEX GMBH

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 972
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP172/2020

The Non-use Application under s52(2)(a) is allowed because Syto/Charmie failed to prove genuine use of the Suit Mark in Hong Kong from 17 January 2017 to 16 January 2020 and the court found non-use commenced 13 December 2014; the appeal against the Registrar is dismissed because the Hearing Officer was entitled to find on the balance of probabilities that the Dickinson Group had authorization/consent from Cybex for the 2011 registration and therefore there was no bad faith, and s53(6) precludes invalidation on the copyright ground once consent is established.
19 Apr 2021

樂氏同仁藥業科技集團有限公司 v. 中國北京同仁堂(集團)有限責任公司

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 1025
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCIP63/2020

The application to adduce fresh evidence was dismissed because the Appellant failed to justify the delay (evidence could and should have been filed earlier, with an unexplained and significant delay of about 2.5 years), the explanation for lateness was unsatisfactory, the proposed evidence was of limited relevance or significance to the bad faith issue (mostly non‑Hong Kong use or post‑relevant date or involving different jurisdictions/laws), and admission would risk prejudice and delay to the Respondent; accordingly the court exercised its discretion against admission and ordered costs.
19 Apr 2021

樂氏同仁藥業科技集團有限公司 v. 中國北京同仁堂(集團)有限責任公司

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 1025
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCIP62/2020

The court exercised its discretion to refuse admission of the proposed fresh evidence because the evidence could and should have been filed earlier with no satisfactory explanation for the long delay, the proposed evidence was of limited relevance or significance to the issue of bad faith in Hong Kong (much of it concerned non‑Hong Kong use, post‑dating the relevant date, or foreign decisions applying different laws), and admission would cause prejudice and delay to the Respondent; accordingly the application was dismissed with costs.
16 Dec 2014

李成足對松美工程公司僱主許重暖及另一人

Citation

李成足對松美工程公司僱主許重暖及另一人
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCPI810/2013

Registrar correctly dismissed the plaintiff's Order 13 applications because the plaintiff failed to prove effective service on the balance of probabilities; the first defendant had filed acknowledgement and defence on 19 May 2014 and, in any event, the defence disclosed real prospects of success so late filing was permitted; therefore the Registrar's cancellation of the six subpoenas was correctly upheld and the appeal failed.
23 Jun 1982

EVER FINANCE LTD v. YUEN WAI PIU

Citation

EVER FINANCE LTD v. YUEN WAI PIU
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV53/1982

The judge below was correct to enlarge time and set aside the registrar's judgment because a substantial, non‑trivial point of law (whether loans in breach of s.22 Cap.328 are unenforceable) was raised and factual contradictions required trial; however the judge erred in remitting the matter to the registrar instead of deciding it himself—therefore the Court dismissed the appellant's appeal, upheld the setting aside of the registrar's judgment, and varied the judge's order to grant unconditional leave to defend.