Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Court procedural rules

Legal area

Court

15 May 2025

BUI VAN NGHI v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 1972
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL664/2023

Because the applicant affirmed the withdrawal was voluntary, that he understood the legal consequences including the finality of the Board's decision and the risk of refoulement, the court was satisfied to permit the withdrawal and granted leave for the applicant to withdraw his leave application.
11 Mar 2025

TRIEU VAN THIEN v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 726
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL396/2023

Because the applicant voluntarily withdrew the application and there were no outstanding matters in the action, the court correctly exercised its power to dismiss the leave application rather than leave the action at large, following the principle in Re Manik Md Mahamudun Nabi [2022] HKCA 471 and procedural rules in Order 53.
11 Jun 2018

CHAN TSUI YAN v. SOCIAL WORKERS REGISTRATION BOARD

Citation

[2018] HKCA 333
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV123/2018

Because the notice of appeal was served in time and the sealed order was not available, the court granted an extension of 14 days to lodge the sealed order; the Norwich & Peterborough merit test is inapplicable to such applications and the respondent’s opposition, unsupported by explanation, was unmeritorious; costs will be borne by each party in the application but the court directed the respondent’s solicitors to state within 7 days whether they waive costs or justify why a wasted costs order should not be considered.
18 Jun 2014

CHEVALIER PROPERTY MANAGEMENT LTD v. THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF GLORIOUS GARDEN AND ANOTHER

Citation

CHEVALIER PROPERTY MANAGEMENT LTD v. THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF GLORIOUS GARDEN AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP739/2014

Leave to appeal was refused because the 2nd defendant failed to demonstrate any reasonable prospect of success; he had knowingly entered into the consent summons and challenging the original injunction is not a proper basis to set aside a consent order absent recognized grounds such as fraud or mutual mistake.

Hong Kong Case Law

BUI VAN NGHI v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

TRIEU VAN THIEN v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

CHAN TSUI YAN v. SOCIAL WORKERS REGISTRATION BOARD

CHEVALIER PROPERTY MANAGEMENT LTD v. THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF GLORIOUS GARDEN AND ANOTHER