Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Failure to appear

Legal area

Court

21 Dec 2021

SAMUEL v. SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE sued for and on behalf of DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION

Citation

[2021] HKDC 1606
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ5724/2017

Plaintiff failed to accept the sanctioned payment and was dismissed for non-attendance; under Order 22 rules 23(4)–(6) indemnity costs are appropriate from 16 April 2020 and enhanced interest is justified to mark the court's disapproval; court orders enhanced interest at a simplified half rate of 5% p.a. from 16 April 2020 to 12 October 2021 and awards costs of the variation application to the defendant on an indemnity basis with certificate for two counsel.
22 Oct 2021

SAMUEL v. SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE sued for and on behalf of DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION

Citation

[2021] HKDC 1322
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ5724/2017

Because the plaintiff withdrew and failed to appear, and the claim was an individual, fact-sensitive civil tort claim rather than a public law judicial review raising exceptional public interest, the court applied Order 35 r1(2) RDC to dismiss the claim and awarded costs to the defendant; public law considerations did not justify hearing the defendant's case in the plaintiff's absence.
10 Sept 2019

香港特別行政區訴林思聰

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 2077
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA139/2019

The appeal was dismissed because the magistrate's decision to forfeit the entire bail was justified: the appellant's explanation was not credible, he had a record of bail breaches and similar offending, and he did not surrender voluntarily; therefore the magistrate did not err in ordering full forfeiture.
16 Nov 2018

RE ANYIAM PRINCE NNAMAKA

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 2437
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL887/2017

The applicant failed to adduce any evidence to rebut the presumption that the Court's decision/summons had been served by posting to the address on record; accordingly the Court was entitled to proceed in his absence and give effect to the posted decision.
16 Feb 2015

RE LOK SIU PING

Citation

RE LOK SIU PING
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCB3530/2014

Because the statutory demand was based on a judgment debt, the debtor filed no evidence of any bona fide dispute, and he had ample notice with no satisfactory excuse for non-attendance, the court must make the usual bankruptcy order with costs against him.
15 Mar 2013

BANK OF CHINA (HONG KONG) LTD v. LEUNG SHIU KEE AND OTHERS

Citation

BANK OF CHINA (HONG KONG) LTD v. LEUNG SHIU KEE AND OTHERS
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ1208/2009

The injunction was continued because the 5th defendant failed to appear or pursue his application to discharge the injunction; failure to pursue the application justified refusal to discharge the order.
12 Oct 2001

YUEN TOOMBS STEPHANIE DOWNS v. YUEN ELMER

Citation

YUEN TOOMBS STEPHANIE DOWNS v. YUEN ELMER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMC2/2000

Order 35 rule 2 does not apply where the absent party had applied for an adjournment which was refused; the correct remedy in such a case is appeal. Consequently the respondent's application under O.35 r.2 was misconceived and, having regard to inadequate medical evidence, the respondent's conduct, and undue delay in seeking relief, the application and the extension of time were dismissed with costs to the petitioner.
24 Aug 1995

R. v. CHAN KAI MAN

Citation

R. v. CHAN KAI MAN
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA485/1995

Appeal allowed because the appellant's uncontested explanation, corroborated by the police memo, established an honest mistaken belief caused by transfer notices being given to persons outside the court while he remained inside, which amounted to reasonable cause for his non‑appearance; therefore the fine was improperly sustained and must be set aside with refund of any payment.
27 Sept 1994

R. v. LAU TAK MONG

Citation

R. v. LAU TAK MONG
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA539/1994

The court held that, although it had jurisdiction to hear the appeal in the appellant's absence, it was proper to adjourn the appeal and to exercise powers under sections 18A and 119(1)(d) of the Magistrates Ordinance to issue a warrant for the appellant's arrest for breach of recognizance.
1 Dec 1983

THE QUEEN v. CHAN WAI-MAN

Citation

THE QUEEN v. CHAN WAI-MAN
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC1244/1983

The estreating of the bail was unjustified because the trial judge rejected the medical certificate and the solicitor's statement without first obtaining confirmation from the treating doctor; the court must protect the liberty of the subject and, absent clear contrary evidence, should verify with the doctor before forcing attendance or estreathing bail, therefore the order estreating bail was set aside and the appeal allowed with costs.