Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Exercise of discretion

Legal area

Court

31 Jul 2025

WKI v. CKW

Citation

[2025] HKCA 709
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP11/2024

The undertaking given by the Wife formed part of the Preamble to the 1 April 2021 order but did not negate or operate as a pre-condition to the Husband's express obligation in paragraph 2 to pay interim child maintenance; the Husband failed to show a reasonable prospect of success on any proposed ground of appeal and no other reason in the interests of justice existed to grant leave, hence the renewed application for leave to appeal was dismissed and costs were ordered against the Husband.
24 Jun 2024

SUCCESS LANE DEVELOPMENT LTD v. FERGURSON HONG KONG LTD t/a NEW WORLD MILLENNIUM HONG KONG HOTEL

Citation

[2024] HKDC 1018
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ2191/2023

Applying section 63A and established authority, the applicant failed to show a reasonable prospect of success or other reason in the interests of justice: the 2nd stay summons was a de facto procedural circumvention of appeal rules and case management decisions attract a high hurdle; the master and judge did not err in law or act plainly irrationally in refusing the stays and in how discovery/joint inspection issues were handled; therefore leave to appeal is refused and costs awarded against the Plaintiff in the sum HK$30,000 on a party and party basis.
29 May 2024

LAM MAN YING (林文英) 對 SO WAH KWAN (蘇華坤)，the administrator of the estate of CHIU LAI CHING (趙麗貞), deceased, formerly traded as BEAUTY REGENT (麗晶專業美容中心)

Citation

[2024] HKCA 502
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP323/2023

Leave to appeal was refused because the appellant failed to show a reasonable prospect of success or any other sufficient reason: the trial judge reasonably assessed medical and factual evidence, found no incapacity to attend, concluded the substantive case was weak, and the court would not overturn those factual and discretionary conclusions absent clear error.
8 Jul 2021

RE CHEUNG HING CHIK also known as CHARLES H.C. CHEUNG, the Debtor

Citation

[2021] HKCA 981
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV577/2020

The Court upheld the judge's discretionary refusal to rescind the bankruptcy order because the bankrupt failed to demonstrate exceptional circumstances or a material change justifying overturning the BO and failed to produce credible evidence that funds were available to meet the debts; although s.6D(3) may be considered in a s.98 application (including post-BO facts), the statutory test was not satisfied on the evidence before the court.
3 Apr 2019

李秀群對陳永如

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 859
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCSA58/2018

Leave to appeal was refused because the defendant failed to demonstrate any legal error or excess of jurisdiction in the Tribunal's decisions; the Tribunal properly exercised its discretion to require a HK$50,000 guarantee and HK$210 costs given the defendant's repeated non‑compliance, lack of supporting evidence and the real risk of an unenforceable judgment.
28 Feb 2018

CHINA MEDICAL TECHNOLOGIES, INC. (In liquidation) v. SAMSON TSANG TAK YUNG

Citation

[2018] HKCA 111
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV197/2014

The Court of Appeal held the three core requirements inform the exercise of discretion under s.327 and are not absolute jurisdictional bars; the third requirement may be dispensed with in exceptional cases where the connection with Hong Kong and the benefits of a Hong Kong liquidation are sufficiently strong. The judge did not err in reopening the hearing, admitting fresh evidence, or in exercising his discretion to make the winding up order; the appeal is dismissed.
16 Nov 2015

M S, EFS also known as S, EF v. M,UN

Citation

M S, EFS also known as S, EF v. M,UN
Court

Family Court
Case number

FCMC2038/2011

The court held that the petitioner cannot be barred from applying to vary or seek provision for the children because a child's claim for financial support cannot be dismissed by a consent order and the statute permits further orders for a child; therefore the respondent's summons was dismissed but the petitioner's summons was adjourned for substantive argument (call over set and directions given), with costs reserved.
15 Mar 2012

CHAN TUNG CHI v. SURYANI

Citation

CHAN TUNG CHI v. SURYANI
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCSA5/2012

Leave to appeal refused because the adjudicator validly exercised the wide discretion under s19 to refuse a late application for a representative; the timing and lateness of the application and potential unfair advantage justified refusal and the delayed written reasons were permissible under s18; there was no reasonable prospect of success on appeal.
8 Jul 2008

MAHBUBANI SUJAL v. CATHAY PACIFIC AIRWAYS LTD

Citation

MAHBUBANI SUJAL v. CATHAY PACIFIC AIRWAYS LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2220/2005

The Corporate Medical Department reasonably concluded plaintiff did not suffer a permanently disabling condition likely to persist to normal retirement age; that conclusion was open on the medical material and thus Cathay Pacific did not breach any implied contractual duty in declining medical retirement; consequently plaintiff's claims for the agreed pension sum and for retirement travel benefits fail.
30 Jun 2003

KONG SHUN MINI WAREHOUSE v. HAHN SHIN MICHELINE SUCKHI

Citation

KONG SHUN MINI WAREHOUSE v. HAHN SHIN MICHELINE SUCKHI
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCSA30/2003

Leave to appeal was refused because the Tribunal correctly found on the evidence that a written lease existed and substantial arrears remained; the Defendant offered only unsubstantiated suspicion about the disposition of her goods and failed to identify any material error in the Tribunal's discretionary decision-making.