Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Discontinuance of proceedings

Legal area

Court

16 Jun 2022

HUANGFU CHUANGXIN v. NI YONGKANG AND OTHERS

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 1721
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1259/2021

Plaintiff failed to establish exceptional circumstances to depart from the default rule that a discontinuing party pays costs because he could not demonstrate he was bound to win: the irregularity principle applied such that even if there were procedural defects the same outcomes would have obtained by majority shareholders; defendants' remedial actions did not amount to admissions rendering the proceedings academic; accordingly plaintiff must pay defendants' costs including discontinuance and costs of the hearing, taxed if not agreed.
1 Mar 2016

RE CHINA SOLAR ENERGY HOLDINGS LTD

Citation

RE CHINA SOLAR ENERGY HOLDINGS LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCW108/2015

Applying Brookes the court found no change of circumstances sufficient to displace the general rule: the opposing contributories' withdrawal was pragmatic and motivated by a friendly white knight they helped procure, not by supervening events or unreasonable conduct by respondents. The ex parte appointment was not shown to be bound to fail. Therefore the discontinuing contributories must pay the costs of the company and Ankang; costs to be taxed if not agreed, with certificate for counsel.
7 Sept 2015

FONG MENG SUNG, JOHN v. LUK MAN LOK ROCKY AND OTHERS

Citation

FONG MENG SUNG, JOHN v. LUK MAN LOK ROCKY AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1959/2009

Order 21, rules 2(1) and (3) do not apply to originating summons proceedings merely because they are ordered to continue as if begun by writ; originating summons have their own discontinuance regime (rules 2(3A)/(3B)) and conversion must not give the plaintiff a second opportunity to discontinue without leave. Consequently the Discontinuance Notice served on 29 July 2013 was invalid; the proper course was for the plaintiff to apply for leave to discontinue, which the Court granted prospectively.
10 Jul 2014

LEUNG LAI YEE v. YUE KEUNG FINANCE & INVESTMENTS LTD

Citation

LEUNG LAI YEE v. YUE KEUNG FINANCE & INVESTMENTS LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1370/2014

Leave to discontinue was granted because the issue became academic after annulment of the sale; no order as to costs of the overall proceedings was made, but the plaintiff was ordered to pay the defendant's costs of and occasioned by the discontinuance application (fixed at HK$6,000) because the plaintiff pursued an improper/unrealistic costs claim and could not rely on the defendant to make counter-proposals.
8 Aug 2012

QIYANG LTD AND OTHERS v. MEI LI NEW ENERGY LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

QIYANG LTD AND OTHERS v. MEI LI NEW ENERGY LTD AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA420/2011

Leave to discontinue the counterclaim was refused because the counterclaim and the 2012 Action involved the same parties and cause of action, the counterclaim had already progressed and any alleged defect could be remedied by amendment, clause 11 did not require prior written notice, and permitting discontinuance would cause duplication, waste judicial resources and be contrary to case management principles; consequently the 2012 Action was struck out.
25 Apr 2006

CHIEW PO YIN v. THE SYCAMORE CO-OPERATIVE BUILDING SOCIETY LTD

Citation

CHIEW PO YIN v. THE SYCAMORE CO-OPERATIVE BUILDING SOCIETY LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL132/2005

Applicant obtained the substantive relief sought by way of respondent's undertakings and the court was inclined to accept applicant's substantive arguments; however respondent's earlier offer did not expressly provide for dismissal/discontinuation of the District Court action and applicant failed to press that specific point in correspondence, contributing to costs. Balancing those factors, the court exercised its discretion to award the applicant 50% of the costs, to be taxed if not agreed.
13 Oct 2000

RE KING PACIFIC INTERNATIONAL HOLDINGS LTD.

Citation

RE KING PACIFIC INTERNATIONAL HOLDINGS LTD.
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1039/2000

The court ordered the 1st respondent entitled to its costs incurred from 6 March 2000 and no order as to costs prior to that date; as to the 2nd respondent, the court exercised its discretion in light of the petitioners having achieved their primary objective (the independent enquiry) and ordered that each side bear its own costs. The court declined to decide the novel jurisdictional question whether s168A applies to overseas companies because it was unnecessary to resolve the costs dispute and was more appropriately determined elsewhere.
15 Jul 1985

HANG SENG BANK LIMITED v. YEUNG SAU MIN

Citation

HANG SENG BANK LIMITED v. YEUNG SAU MIN
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1170/1983

The court has the power in a proper case to grant leave to a mortgagee to discontinue foreclosure proceedings under Order 21 rule 3 and to set aside an Order Nisi even in the absence of the mortgagor's consent; Stevens v. Theatres Ltd does not preclude the court exercising that power.