Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
Hong Kong decisions
Decisions matching the current search
The court dismissed the defendant’s objections to a costs assessment and made the costs order nisi absolute, awarding HK$70,000 and apportioning it between the two plaintiffs.
The application for permission to appeal out of time was dismissed because the defendant failed to file any affidavit explaining the delay or to produce evidence supporting his asserted ground (the mother’s equitable interest); absent such explanation or evidence there was no special reason to extend time and the late application must be refused. Costs were awarded to the plaintiff in the assessed sum of HK$12,000.
Source excerpt
The appellate court held there was no error in the lower judge's exercise of discretion. The appellant's claims against the first defendant were previously resolved in DCCJ 2617/2016 and therefore abusive; claims against the second defendant were derivative and should have been raised earlier (Henderson v Henderson); claims against the housing authority lacked factual basis as the penalty period had expired and the appellant remained in occupation. Accordingly the strike‑out was upheld and costs awarded to the respondents in quantified amounts.
Source excerpt
The application to admit further evidence was refused because the applicant failed the first Ladd v Marshall requirement: the documents were in existence before the strike-out hearing and the applicant did not show she had exercised reasonable diligence to obtain or explain non-production at that hearing; therefore the summons for further evidence was dismissed and costs awarded to respondent.
Source excerpt
Leave to appeal refused because the appellant failed to identify any error in the impugned decision, merely repeated previously rejected arguments, and the proposed new evidence failed the Ladd v Marshall test (no demonstration of reasonable efforts to obtain it earlier and no realistic prospect of affecting the outcome); the impugned decision that the claim disclosed no reasonable cause and was malicious/abusive stands, so there is no reasonable prospect of success nor any other reason in the interests of justice to grant leave. The appellant is ordered to pay the respondent's costs of the a…
Source excerpt
The appeal was dismissed because the Land Tribunal had adjudicated the defendant liable and ordered costs which were assessed; the absolute charging order was registered; the plaintiff provided detailed and supported calculations showing the outstanding debt exceeded the 400,000 HKD deposit; and there was no convincing evidence or lawful basis to set aside the sale order.
Source excerpt
The Court of First Instance refused leave to appeal against a security-for-costs ruling, finding no reasonable prospect of success and awarding costs against the plaintiff.
The Court of Appeal ordered the plaintiffs to provide HK$2,000,000 security for costs of the appeal, stayed the appeal pending payment, and awarded the defendants HK$100,000 in costs.
The court allowed the plaintiff to file the supplemental affidavit but refused the defendant's application to adduce fresh evidence because the defendant failed the primary Ladd v Marshall requirement of demonstrating that the evidence could not have been obtained with reasonable diligence before or during trial, and the proposed materials lacked sufficient importance/impact and credibility; accordingly the defendant's 17 January 2025 summons was dismissed and costs were awarded to the plaintiff in the sum of HKD133,000.
Source excerpt
Assessment of damages for copyright infringement over a pirated livestream: general damages were set at HK$1.75 million, additional damages were refused, and costs were awarded with a reduction for exaggeration.
Explore more
