Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Duplication of proceedings

Legal area

Court

21 Jan 2026

MANDEEP SINGH v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 364
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL2297/2025

The application was struck out because it merely duplicated a previously dismissed application against the same Board decision and therefore amounted to an abuse of process under binding Court of Appeal authority; the applicant gave no justification and had not appealed the prior refusal of an extension of time, so striking out was appropriate.
8 Oct 2025

TEMBE VICTOR CARLOS v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 4335
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1584/2020

The application was struck out because it was a duplication of a previous judicial review on the same facts and therefore constituted an abuse of process, following the binding authority in Khan Kamran v Torture Claims Appeal Board [2020] HKCA 380; accordingly the leave application could not proceed.
22 Jul 2025

NURHAYATI BT SAHURI SOKA v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 2777
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL752/2025

The application was struck out because it duplicated an earlier judicial review proceeding (HCAL 1616 of 2023) and thereby constituted an abuse of process; the applicant's failure to disclose the prior proceedings warranted strike out, following Court of Appeal authority.
13 Jun 2025

NEW ART HOLDINGS CO., LTD. AND OTHERS v. T&T ART CO., LTD (Formerly known as EST-OUEST AUCTIONS CO., LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 2646
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA325/2024

The court refused to vary the costs orders nisi. It held the Defendants' delay in confirming their stance on the stay application was reasonable given receipt timing and public holidays; the JPY 36,488,200 formed part of the Japanese proceedings so duplication justified the stay application; the Defendants lost only on a discrete construction point and should bear 20% of costs on that issue; accordingly the earlier costs orders were made absolute with the apportionments set out (Plaintiffs to pay Defendants costs of Order 14 Summons; on Defendants' Summonses Defendants liable for 20% and Plai…
29 Apr 2024

TSANG CHI WOON t/a ON-LINE WORKSHOP v. BOX DESIGN LTD

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 1134
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCSA26/2024

The adjudicator gave three good and sufficient reasons—overlapping issues/projects, that the respondent's defence was essentially a set-off linked to the District Court action, and identity of parties/witnesses—which justified transfer under s.7 Cap.338 to avoid duplication; the High Court, on review under s.27, confirmed the transfer and ordered costs to the respondent.
29 Apr 2024

TSANG CHI WOON t/a ON-LINE WORKSHOP v. BOX DESIGN LTD

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 1134
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCSA21/2024

The adjudicator properly exercised the discretion to transfer because there were overlapping issues and projects, the respondent's defence in the Small Claims Actions was essentially a set-off tied to the District Court Action, and parties and witnesses were essentially identical; transfer to the District Court avoids duplication and is therefore justified and should be upheld on review under s27 Cap.338.
29 Apr 2024

TSANG CHI WOON t/a ON-LINE WORKSHOP v. BOX DESIGN LTD

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 1134
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCSA22/2024

The adjudicator provided good and sufficient reasons for transfer — overlapping issues between the small claims and the District Court action, the respondent's set-off defence being essentially the same matter, and identical parties and witnesses — and therefore the transfer order to the District Court was justified and should be confirmed on review; the applicant's inability to afford counsel is irrelevant because he may act in person.
29 Apr 2024

TSANG CHI WOON t/a ON-LINE WORKSHOP v. BOX DESIGN LTD

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 1134
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCSA28/2024

The Adjudicator's reasons — overlapping issues and projects, respondent's defence being essentially set-off to the District Court action, and identity of parties and witnesses — constituted good and sufficient reasons in the interests of justice to transfer the Small Claims Actions to the District Court; the court on review under s27 confirmed the transfer and upheld avoidance of duplicative proceedings.
29 Apr 2024

TSANG CHI WOON t/a ON-LINE WORKSHOP v. BOX DESIGN LTD

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 1134
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCSA27/2024

The Adjudicator provided good and sufficient reasons—overlapping issues and projects, respondent's set-off defence in the District Court action, and identity of parties and witnesses—such that transfer of the Small Claims Actions to the District Court to be determined together with the District Court Action was necessary to avoid duplicative proceedings; on review under section 27 the court examined the matter afresh and found the transfer order properly made and confirmed it.
12 May 2022

有關韓欣陶的事宜

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 1489
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCB164/2020

As a case-management decision the court struck out the trustees' summons and the bankrupt's second summons as unnecessary duplication because HCMP possession proceedings had been initiated and are the appropriate forum to determine possession and related substantive disputes; no order was made on the bankrupt's first summons because factual questions about ownership and the applicability of s43F remained unresolved and should be determined in the possession proceedings or at an appropriate hearing; no costs were ordered.