Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Appeals

Legal area

Court

4 Jun 2020

FUNG TIN YAU (IN HIS OWN CAPACITY AND SUING AS A SHAREHOLDER OF MAXFORTUNE TRADING LTD AND ON BEHALF OF MAXFORTUNE TRADING LTD AS SHAREHOLDER OF SAMDOR CO LTD) v. FUNG TIN SHING AND OTHERS

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 1051
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCW170/2016

The court varied the costs order nisi: it held the Petitioner entitled to costs of all 3 sets of appeals including the reserved Directions Hearing costs but reduced the quantum by summary assessment to HK$700,000 (applying a broad brush reduction of professional hours and taxing down unnecessary two-counsel attendance); ordered costs of the Direction Summons to be in the cause; summarily assessed the Costs Summons at HK$5,000 to be set off against the appeal costs; left detailed apportionment among respondents to the parties.
15 May 2019

CHUN WO CONSTRUCTION & ENGINEERING CO. LTD AND OTHERS v. THE HONG KONG HOUSING AUTHORITY

Citation

[2019] HKCA 541
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV338/2018

The Court ordered indemnity costs in both appeals: in CACV 431/2018 the defendant was ordered to pay indemnity costs to the plaintiffs because the defendant's appeal was incompetent; in CACV 338/2018 the plaintiffs were ordered to pay indemnity costs to the defendant because binding precedents require indemnity costs where a party fails to set aside an arbitral award; costs below in HCCT 54/2017 to be taxed on an indemnity basis.
14 Feb 2018

FIRST KIND LTD v. WONG KWOK FAI PATRICK, APPOINTED BY THE ORDER OF THE LANDS TRIBUNAL DATED 29TH JUNE 2017 TO REPRESENT THE ESTATE OF WONG SHEK, DECEASED AND OTHERS

Citation

[2018] HKLdT 7
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDCS15000/2014

The Lands Tribunal, by virtue of the amended s10(1) LTO, has inherited the CFI's inherent jurisdiction to set aside a notice of discontinuance filed without leave where there is abuse of process; however, on the facts before the Tribunal the applicant's discontinuance of three CS applications was not established to be an abuse of process sufficient to set aside the Notices, so the summonses to set aside were dismissed and costs were awarded to the applicant.
11 Oct 2016

恒生銀行有限公司對林偉雄及另一人

Citation

恒生銀行有限公司對林偉雄及另一人
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1290/2013

Both appeals against the interlocutory orders were dismissed because the interlocutory applications had been dealt with before the plaintiff validly set down the trial, the first defendant had time and opportunity to raise objections earlier, the appeals were manifestly without reasonable grounds and constituted abuse and delay; indemnity costs were awarded to the plaintiff.
1 Aug 2016

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. KWOK YEUNG YUK

Citation

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. KWOK YEUNG YUK
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV86/2016

The Court held the appeals are properly characterized as civil appeals (CACVs) because the committal prosecutions were brought under Order 52 as civil proceedings; Section 50 applies to interlocutory orders in committal proceedings but does not displace the procedural leave requirement in s14AA for interlocutory appeals (save for the specific exemptions in Order 59 r21 for committal and related orders); Rules of the High Court govern procedure, while HKBoR articles 10 and 11 protections apply to the contemnors due to penal consequences.
9 Jan 2006

袁靄儀 v. 協峰電子有限公司

Citation

袁靄儀 v. 協峰電子有限公司
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA96/2005

Given Yuen's documented pattern of repetitive, abusive litigation and conduct (numerous struck-out actions, repeated unsolicited communications to the court, and propensity to bring meritless claims), it was necessary and proportionate to impose a RPO and RAO with procedural leave requirements extending to specified subject matters and forums (including District Court, Labour Tribunal and Small Claims Tribunal and Order 53 leave for judicial review), while preserving her rights to specified existing appeals; the Section 27 application by the Secretary for Justice was reasonable and the respon…
27 Sept 1999

TONG TIM NUI AND OTHERS v. HONG KONG HOUSING AUTHORITY

Citation

TONG TIM NUI AND OTHERS v. HONG KONG HOUSING AUTHORITY
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV342/1998

The Court exercised its discretion to depart from the ordinary rule that costs follow the event and ordered no costs because the Housing Authority had acquiesced in the judge's course, failed to appeal the original judgment, and its success on appeal was due to this Court's view rather than its own arguments, constituting exceptional circumstances warranting no order for costs.
4 Sept 1996

CHAN CHEUK TONG v. DIRECTOR OF LANDS

Citation

CHAN CHEUK TONG v. DIRECTOR OF LANDS
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV223/1995

The notice of appeal failed to disclose any question of law as required by s.11(2) Lands Tribunal Ordinance and r.2 O60A RSC; therefore no competent appeal lay to the Court of Appeal and the Court properly exercised its inherent jurisdiction to strike out the notice of appeal and dismiss the appeal.
8 Feb 1985

JADE PALACE RESTAURANT CENTRE LTD v. LEUNG YIU-MING AND OTHERS

Citation

JADE PALACE RESTAURANT CENTRE LTD v. LEUNG YIU-MING AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP127/1985

Sections 32, 35 and 35A of the Labour Tribunal Ordinance must be construed so that references to appeals are read as "following an appeal heard by leave given under section 32"; consequently the Court of Appeal had no jurisdiction to grant the leave given on 27 July (that order was ultra vires) and the present application was struck out; estoppel per rem judicatam precluded the applicants from denying the prior conclusive construction in the same matter.
22 Sept 1982

CHAN HON-YUEN v. THE QUEEN

Citation

CHAN HON-YUEN v. THE QUEEN
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC810/1982

The magistrate lawfully exercised sentencing discretion by treating the offences as commercial misrepresentation, using a penalty assessment tied to disclosed gross profit (a 2:1 ratio) and apportioning fines accordingly; no grounds were shown that the fines were manifestly excessive or wrong in principle, therefore the sentences were upheld.