Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Consent order

Legal area

Court

26 Nov 2025

SERES PROPERTIES B.V. v. LEE HOCK PUN AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 5750
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1287/2022

The Default Judgment was irregular because service by insertion in the letter box under O.10 r.1(2) required the defendant to be within the jurisdiction when the writ was served and the evidence established D1 was not; the consent order did not preclude D1 from pursuing a direct challenge to the validity of the Default Judgment and there was no abuse of process or prejudice warranting retention of the irregular judgment, therefore the Default Judgment must be set aside ex debito justitiae and related enforcement measures founded on it (charging order, attempted discharge) fall away.
11 Nov 2025

KUMAR VINOD v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 5289
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL763/2019

The court struck out the applicant's application because the applicant admitted the procedural mistake, the prior Board decision had been quashed by consent and remitted for reconsideration, and there was no viable basis to continue the present proceedings; the appropriate course is to seek leave and judicial review of the re-decided Board decision.
8 Oct 2025

CHEUNG NGA WUN v. MAK CHUN HING T/A JEFFREY MAK LAW FIRM

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 5483
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCLA24/2025

The application for review was properly dismissed as out of time because section 31 LTO prescribes a non-extendable 7-day limit; the judge has no power to extend that limit and therefore had to dismiss the Defendant's leave to appeal application against the Consent Order for being out of time and lacking good reason; on the merits there was no duty on the Claimant to disclose the alleged internet comments or secret email and those matters were irrelevant or inadmissible to vitiate the Consent Order, so the intended appeal had no prospect of success.
10 Mar 2025

RICH AND HONOR MANAGEMENT LTD AND OTHERS v. MING YANG CAPITAL LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 1013
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1559/2023

The court ruled that Plaintiffs are the effective winners of the Continuation Summons because Defendants consented to continuation of the injunction over HK$260,000,000; however the WP Transfers being without admission could not be treated as a standalone 'win' for Plaintiffs and Defendants' conduct justified not ordering immediate payment. Therefore the proper orders are Plaintiffs' costs in the cause for the Continuation Summons with certificate for two counsel, and costs of the Consent Summons to be costs in the cause, with a nisi order of no order as to costs in the costs disputes to be m…
9 Jan 2025

YWS v. SJ

Citation

[2025] HKFC 10
Court

Family Court
Case number

FCMC10832/2008

H failed to establish a material change justifying variation before retirement: evidence showed continued capacity to pay (employment income, dividend income, lump sums, gifts, accumulated assets and investments); no adverse inference drawn for not calling Madam C because no explanation was put to H and it would be unfair to draw such inference; balancing incomes and reasonable needs the court declined to vary the 2011 order now but ordered a prospective reduction to HK$10,000 per month only upon H’s retirement or cessation of employment; H must pay all arrears and W awarded costs on a nisi b…
10 Sept 2024

LCFM v. LSF

Citation

[2024] HKCA 852
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP339/2023

The Court of Appeal refused leave to appeal: the trial judge applied the correct legal principles, made relevant factual findings including that there was no material change of circumstances and that the 2nd Applicant gave informed consent to the undertaking; there is no reasonable prospect of success on appeal and no other interest of justice to hear it; accordingly the undertaking remains in force and the summons is dismissed.
9 Sept 2024

NEW LAND PROPERTIES DEVELOPMENT LTD AND ANOTHER v. GEORGE Y.C. MOK & CO (A FIRM)

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 2379
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP31/2024

The Court held the Court of Appeal's interpretation of s56 LPO was binding and rendered the claimed oral agreement unenforceable; consequently the consent order referring the bill to taxation was unenforceable and must be set aside; no order as to costs.
15 Aug 2024

JK BALLET & JAZZ SCHOOL LTD v. JOLLY KIDS EDUCATION AND DANCING ACADEMY LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 2132
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCIP68/2022

On a holistic broad‑brush summary assessment the claimed sum was excessive given lack of substantive hearing and no opposing affirmation; allowance made for necessary factual gathering but excessive time for communications and perusal required reduction, leading to an assessed award of $85,000 in favour of the Defendants.
7 Aug 2024

LAW MEI KIN 對 WONG WAI KWAN

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 2206
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCSA17/2024

The application for leave was dismissed because the consent order was reached voluntarily following a patient and orderly hearing; there was no objective evidence of bias, coercion or tampering; and the applicant failed to establish a question of law or jurisdictional excess under s28(1), therefore no real prospect of success on appeal.
7 Jun 2024

譚對歐陽及另二人

Citation

[2024] HKCA 498
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP276/2022

The application for leave to appeal was refused because the proposed appeal raised no question of law of general or public importance and concerned only case‑specific factual complaints; no other exceptional reasons existed to justify referral to the Court of Final Appeal, so leave was denied and costs ordered against the applicant.