Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Final vs interlocutory judgment

Legal area

Court

30 Jan 2015

杭州日月電器股份有限公司 v. THE REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES AND OTHERS

Citation

杭州日月電器股份有限公司 v. THE REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP2647/2014

The reinstatement order was final in character, so the 3rd Respondent required leave to appeal out of time; applying the delay factors, the intended appeal had no real prospect of success given the Hangzhou court's order and the existence of bona fide disputes, and the application for leave out of time is therefore dismissed with costs.
28 Feb 2013

THE OWNERS AND/OR DEMISE CHARTERERS OF THE SHIP OR VESSEL “OOCL CHINA” v. THE OWNERS AND/OR DEMISE CHARTERERS OF THE SHIP OR VESSEL “DARYA BHAKTI”

Citation

THE OWNERS AND/OR DEMISE CHARTERERS OF THE SHIP OR VESSEL “OOCL CHINA” v. THE OWNERS AND/OR DEMISE CHARTERERS OF THE SHIP OR VESSEL “DARYA BHAKTI”
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAJ218/2009

The 10 December 2012 judgment was a final determination after trial of the quantum issue, so the plaintiffs had an appeal as of right under s14(1); s14AA (leave) was inapplicable because the judgment was not interlocutory; the 28-day appeal period under Order 59 r4 had expired and the court could not extend time under Order 59 r15, therefore the summons seeking leave to appeal was misconceived and dismissed.
28 Dec 2011

HONG DA DEVELOPMENT & INVESTMENT HOLDING CO LTD v. CHINA AOYUAN PROPERTY GROUP LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

HONG DA DEVELOPMENT & INVESTMENT HOLDING CO LTD v. CHINA AOYUAN PROPERTY GROUP LTD AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1377/2011

The refusal of the interlocutory injunction was an interlocutory order and did not fall within Order 59 Rule 21(1)(a); Hong Da failed to demonstrate sufficient prospects of success on appeal or any compelling interest of justice to grant leave; accordingly the application for a direction that the appeal lies as of right and the application for leave to appeal were dismissed, subject to a limited interim injunction and specified undertakings.
1 Nov 2006

ALL OVERSEAS LTD AND OTHERS v. BEST CODES NOMINEES LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

ALL OVERSEAS LTD AND OTHERS v. BEST CODES NOMINEES LTD AND OTHERS
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV329/2005

Leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal was refused because the intended appeal did not satisfy section 22(1)(a) (no dispute involving or indirectly involving property or civil right of value $1,000,000 or more) nor section 22(1)(b) (no issue of great general or public importance); the Court treated its earlier judgment as final under the Shell test; payment out of $250,000 is ordered to the plaintiffs as its purpose (security for appeal costs) has been rendered inoperative; plaintiffs' applications to vary costs order and to pay out $220,000 were refused because those issues were not re…
29 Aug 2006

NG YAT CHI AND ANOTHER v. CHINA RESOURCES (HOLDINGS) CO LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

NG YAT CHI AND ANOTHER v. CHINA RESOURCES (HOLDINGS) CO LTD AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA424/2005

The Registrar held that the costs order made by Cheung J, with the amount ascertained, constituted a final order for the purpose of a charging order and, because the judgment remained valid and unsatisfied and had not been stayed, the charging order nisi should be made absolute to enforce payment of the taxed costs.
1 Mar 2005

HUAXIN (HONG KONG) CO LTD v. CHEERFUL CORPORATION AND OTHERS

Citation

HUAXIN (HONG KONG) CO LTD v. CHEERFUL CORPORATION AND OTHERS
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV343/2003

The court held that the earlier Order 14A determinations (Woolley and Muttrie) were wrong in law in light of higher authority that breach of s20(1) is not necessarily fatal because it can be cured; however, because the 2nd and 3rd defendants had been deleted from the proceedings by a 16 September 2003 amendment order, the appeal raised a real competency issue. The Court therefore adjourned the appeal for 14 days and gave the plaintiff a conditional opportunity to apply to set aside the 16 September 2003 order and to file affidavit evidence and undertakings; failing compliance the appeal will…
25 May 2004

HIP HING TIMBER COMPANY LTD v. TANG MAN KIT and FOO TAK CHING

Citation

HIP HING TIMBER COMPANY LTD v. TANG MAN KIT and FOO TAK CHING
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FACV11/2003

To avoid a jurisdictional nullity and ensure an effective appeal path the court directed the hearing to be stood down so the parties could file a s.34B(4)(c) consent and obtain a fresh handing-down by a properly constituted Court of Appeal (which must grant leave to appeal), because Yuen J's decision on the principal issue appeared to be final and therefore any appeal to a two-member Court of Appeal can proceed only under s.34B(4)(c), pursuant to the principle in Shell Hong Kong Ltd v Yeung.
3 Apr 2003

FU LOK MAN JAMES t/a LOKIE LEATHERWARE MANUFACTURING CO v. CHIEF BAILIFF OF THE HIGH COURT

Citation

FU LOK MAN JAMES t/a LOKIE LEATHERWARE MANUFACTURING CO v. CHIEF BAILIFF OF THE HIGH COURT
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV290/2002

The court held the charging order made absolute is interlocutory for the purposes of s.22(1)(a) of Cap.484; the relevant matter in dispute is the applicant's beneficial interest in the charged property (not the taxed costs), which was not shown to meet the $1,000,000 threshold; the appeal did not raise any matter of great general or public importance and no exceptional circumstances existed under the 'or otherwise' limb; accordingly leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal was refused.
7 May 1992

FONG YEE LAN v. YIU YAU PING

Citation

FONG YEE LAN v. YIU YAU PING
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV128/1991

The court applied the established "application" approach and held the judgment was interlocutory not a final decision giving an appeal as of right under rule 2(a); it further held the issues sought to be raised under rule 2(b) were not questions of great general or public importance and therefore refused leave to appeal; the application was dismissed with costs.
25 Oct 1989

FIRST PACIFIC BANK LTD. v. ROBERT H.P. FUNG

Citation

FIRST PACIFIC BANK LTD. v. ROBERT H.P. FUNG
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV37/1989

A decision on preliminary issues ordered under RSC O.33 r.3 that goes to the root of the case and substantially disposes of the controversy between the parties (leaving only quantification) is a final judgment for the purposes of Order in Council rule 2(a), entitling the unsuccessful party to appeal to Her Majesty in Council as of right; additionally, where rule 2(b) is relied upon the application should state the question of law relied upon and leave may be granted in the Court's discretion for questions of great general or public importance.