Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Appeal permission

Legal area

Court

14 Nov 2025

陳清秀對蔡源

Citation

[2025] HKDC 1894
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ3275/2023

The permission to appeal was refused because the plaintiff failed to adduce evidence to prove the value of the claimed loss, did not make a proper disclosure application and did not demonstrate that CCTV would produce decisive evidence; the 14 August 2025 Order 58 summons was incorrectly brought and revoked; the plaintiff failed to show a reasonable prospect of success under s63A(2), and the adjournment was refused.
10 Feb 2025

沈世成及另二人對盈匠工程有限公司

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 633
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCLA24/2024

Permission to appeal was refused for grounds that merely challenge the Tribunal's factual assessments because those do not raise arguable legal errors; however permission was granted for a discrete legal question whether the Tribunal's award ordering three months' wages for one claimant exceeded the statutory limitation under Employment Ordinance s43C, which presents an arguable point of law and/or jurisdictional issue.
29 Nov 2024

SOURCE VIEW DEVELOPMENT LTD 對 CAFE HAPPY POST LTD及另三人

Citation

[2024] HKCA 1112
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP334/2023

The appeals and leave applications are dismissed because the appellant failed to identify any legal error in the lower courts' rulings, relied on repetitive and unarguable grounds (including erroneous characterisation of administrators' authority), did not obtain required leave for costs-only appeals, and failed to show the lower courts abused their discretion in awarding costs; accordingly the lower courts' findings that the administrators validly effected the sale and the costs orders were proper are upheld.
29 Nov 2024

SOURCE VIEW DEVELOPMENT LTD 對 CAFE HAPPY POST LTD及另三人

Citation

[2024] HKCA 1112
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP365/2023

All appeals and leave applications were dismissed because the appellant repeated previously rejected grounds without demonstrating legal error; lower courts correctly held the transfers valid under probate and trustee law; costs orders were lawful discretionary assessments and appeals against costs lacked required permission; the applications constituted abuse of process; consequentially the Court awarded costs to the respondent in the sum of HKD110,000.
29 Nov 2024

SOURCE VIEW DEVELOPMENT LTD 對 CAFE HAPPY POST LTD及另三人

Citation

[2024] HKCA 1112
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV36/2023

The Court found the appellant's arguments lacked merit and prospect: the administrators had authority to contract and transfer the property, the transfer did not breach the deed, and the appellant failed to identify legal error by the lower courts. Appeals and leave applications concerning costs lacked statutory permission or reasonable prospects and were abusive/repetitive. The Court dismissed all appeals and refused permission applications and ordered the appellant to pay the respondent's costs assessed at HKD110,000.
29 Nov 2024

SOURCE VIEW DEVELOPMENT LTD 對 CAFE HAPPY POST LTD及另三人

Citation

[2024] HKCA 1112
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV105/2023

The appeals and leave applications were dismissed because the appellant failed to identify any legal error in the lower courts' decisions, merely re‑ran previously rejected arguments; the 2009 transfer was valid as the estate administrator had statutory authority under the Wills and Administration Ordinance and Trustees Ordinance; costs orders were discretionary and not shown to be wrongly exercised; appeals against costs required leave under Cap 4 and no proper leave was sought, so appellate intervention was unjustified.
29 Nov 2024

SOURCE VIEW DEVELOPMENT LTD 對 CAFE HAPPY POST LTD及另三人

Citation

[2024] HKCA 1112
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV81/2023

All of the appellant's grounds were previously considered and rejected by the trial judges; the appellant failed to show any legal error in those decisions; the sellers had statutory authority as administrators to effect the sale and transfer; appeals against costs orders required permission which was not obtained; the applications were repetitive and constituted abuse of process; accordingly all appeals and permission applications were dismissed and costs awarded to Source View.
29 Nov 2024

SOURCE VIEW DEVELOPMENT LTD 對 CAFE HAPPY POST LTD及另三人

Citation

[2024] HKCA 1112
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV464/2022

All appeals and permission applications were dismissed because the appellant's arguments merely repeated grounds previously considered and rejected below and therefore lacked a reasonable prospect of success; appeals against pure costs orders required prior permission which was not obtained; the lower courts had lawfully exercised discretion on costs and there was no error sufficient to justify appellate interference; allegations of contempt were unsupported.
28 Nov 2024

林秀霞，the Committee of the estate of 李英，a mentally incapacitated person (pursuant to the Order of the Honourable Madam Justice Marlene Ng made on 3 November 2021 under Part II of the Mental Health Ordinance, Cap 136）對林鎮星

Citation

[2024] HKDC 2011
Court

District Court
Case number

DCMP128/2022

The defendant failed to identify any arguable error in the impugned order; the registry‑issued writs are not appealable judicial decisions under Order 58; the proposed fresh evidence relates to execution matters and does not satisfy Ladd v Marshall's materiality requirement; the subpoena application is irrelevant to appeal permission. Therefore all applications are dismissed and costs awarded to the plaintiff.
3 Oct 2024

朱文蘭對李志榮及另一人

Citation

[2024] HKLdT 83
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDBM33/2022

Leave to appeal refused because the Tribunal correctly applied legal principles governing discretionary equitable relief: it found breaches of the DMC but, on the facts (delay, acquiescence, lack of expert evidence of structural risk, limited or remediable damage and disproportionate cost), reasonably concluded mandatory orders were not justified; applicant failed to show a legal error or an arguable prospect of success to warrant leave.