Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Court discretion

Legal area

Court

13 Apr 2026

MR CHU KONG v. SUN MIN AND OTHERS

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2087
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP3605/2016

The judge ruled that defendants are not required to make an election whether to call evidence at the time they make a submission of no case to answer; the criminal procedure applies to the election issue in committal/contempt proceedings because Articles 10 and 11 HKBoR require the protection afforded by the criminal no-case mechanism (the defendant may "wait and see" and decide only after the court's ruling), and Order 52 r6(4) is to be read purposively within the court's power to regulate procedure.
10 Jan 2025

CHOW LILY v. CHOW WAI WAI VIOLET AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 249
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAP22/2019

The defendants' Variation Application is dismissed because the court had already considered the plaintiff's unexplained delay when making the Order Nisi and the defendants failed to resist the amendment; it would be unfair to allow the defendants to recover their substantive hearing costs where they did not prevent the amendment — accordingly the Order Nisi is made absolute, costs follow the event and certificate for two counsel is refused.
12 Jan 2024

律政司司長訴華德剛

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 52
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCB1174/2023

The application to set aside the bankruptcy order was dismissed because the debtor failed to provide a reasonable and credible explanation for his absence and failed to comply with the court's direction to file detailed medical evidence; the debt was properly assessed under Limitation Ordinance s.4(4); and even if set aside the court concluded the bankruptcy order would inevitably be made again, so discretion to annul was refused.
26 Aug 2022

BALJIT-SINGH v. OSCAR BIOENERGY JOINT VENTURE

Citation

[2022] HKDC 904
Court

District Court
Case number

DCPI563/2021

The court refused consolidation because the respondent's (Oscar's) strategic delay in the EC Action frustrated the statutory objective of expeditious employees' compensation claims; given the s 26(1) proviso the PI Action can dispose of issues rendering the EC Action unnecessary, the PI Action was ordered to proceed immediately and the EC Action stayed until its determination, and the consolidation summonses were dismissed with a costs nisi against Oscar.
13 Jun 2022

YUEN OI YEE LISA 對 NGAI NGOK PANG 及另一人

Citation

[2022] HKCA 844
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP282/2019

The Court refused leave to appeal because the applicants failed to show that the issues involved were of general or public importance or met other statutory criteria under s22; the application in CAMP 282/2019 was revoked because the prior refusal was not a decision permitting further appeal under the High Court Ordinance; the first defendant failed to establish grounds for leave to appeal on costs and no costs order was made.
14 Apr 2022

KWAN HO LAM (a minor) suing by his father and next friend KWAN WAI HEI v. JUMPIN GYM USA LTD

Citation

[2022] HKDC 314
Court

District Court
Case number

DCPI1771/2017

The court exercised its discretionary jurisdiction to allow the withdrawal of the NoD because on balance (1) the infant plaintiff would be prejudiced by further delay, (2) the claim and settlement sum were modest and should be finalised, (3) the defendant was neutral and not prejudiced so long as its position on costs and the agreed payment was preserved, and (4) the plaintiff's principal solicitor admitted supervisory failings and agreed to bear wasted costs; accordingly leave to withdraw the NoD was granted subject to solicitor personal liability for costs on an indemnity basis and directio…
18 Mar 2022

LAM WAI YIP 對 THE SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE

Citation

[2022] HKCA 392
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV435/2020

Extension of time to serve the notice of appeal was granted because the appellant filed the notice within the prescribed period at court but failed to effect personal service due to a genuine technical misunderstanding, the respondent had actual notice and was not prejudiced, and the appeal was not shown to be hopeless; therefore justice required exercise of the court's discretion to extend time and allow the appeal to proceed.
19 Nov 2021

TE WING CHI v. SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 3473
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP981/2021

Given the unprecedented postponement and the Regulation changing the deadline, the court found the applicant's failure to file was inadvertence, not bad faith, satisfying s40(2)(c) ECICO; relief was granted permitting the applicant to lodge the election return out of time and the court awarded costs against the applicant in the sum of HKD 20,000.
27 Sept 2021

RE UMAR SHAHZAD

Citation

[2021] HKCA 1409
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP93/2020

Refusal to extend time: a three‑week delay was substantial, the applicant's explanation he did not receive the judgment was not credible or explained, he identified no arguable point of law or question of public importance required by s.22(1)(b) HKCFAO, and he failed to comply with directions; on that basis the court exercised its discretion to refuse the extension and dismissed the Notice of Motion.
24 May 2021

RE AMIN MUHAMMAD

Citation

[2021] HKCA 692
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV439/2020

The applicant’s Notice of Motion does not disclose any question of great general or public importance and consists largely of arguments already considered and rejected; it also introduces new irrelevant grounds that should have been raised earlier, therefore leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal is refused.