Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Finality in litigation

Legal area

Court

11 Oct 2019

MAYER CORPORATION DEVELOPMENT INTERNATIONAL LTD v. ALLIANCE FINANCIAL INTELLIGENCE LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

[2019] HKCA 1122
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV66/2017

The Court refused leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal because the questions were either not reasonably arguable or were premature and fact‑sensitive and therefore unsuitable for determination on a leave/striking out application; consequentially the application for leave was dismissed and costs awarded to Mayer.
26 May 2014

LAI YING ON v. SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE for and on behalf of THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE

Citation

LAI YING ON v. SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE for and on behalf of THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV228/2012

The Court held the damages actions were an abuse of process under the Henderson v Henderson principle because the constitutional challenge to regulations could and should have been advanced in the earlier judicial review proceedings; public interests in finality of litigation and proper administration of public disciplinary processes outweigh the plaintiffs' interests in relitigation, therefore the Judge's strike out was upheld.
18 Feb 2011

WAN HOW WAN v. WAN HOI WEI

Citation

WAN HOW WAN v. WAN HOI WEI
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA578/2006

Although the applicant demonstrated a potentially meritorious defence, the court exercised its unfettered discretion under O.13 r.9 against setting aside the regular default judgment because of very substantial and unexplained delay, a conscious decision not to challenge the judgment earlier, prejudice to the plaintiff through reliance and deterioration of evidence (including plaintiff's advanced age), and the public policy of finality in litigation; accordingly the application to intervene and to set aside the judgment was dismissed.
5 Oct 2010

WONG TAK YIU v. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE

Citation

WONG TAK YIU v. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL42/2010

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because, although the challenge to the validity of Regs 9(11) and 9(12) and challenges to findings on operational efficiency were reasonably arguable, the applicant failed to demonstrate good reason for the substantial delay (over eight months before seeking legal aid and approximately 21 months overall). The period taken to obtain legal aid only partly excused delay and the cumulative facts did not amount to the exceptional circumstances required to displace the finality principle; further, rehearing would be detrimental to good administration.…
26 Oct 2007

TREASURE SPOT FINANCE CO LTD v. LI CHIK MING AND ANOTHER

Citation

TREASURE SPOT FINANCE CO LTD v. LI CHIK MING AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA5387/2001

Application refused because the court was not satisfied that exceptional circumstances existed to reopen the case or recall witnesses after evidence had concluded, and the authorities relied upon did not involve recalling witnesses in relation to the exercise of the statutory discretion under ss 18 and 22 of the Money Lenders Ordinance.
19 Sept 2007

HARVEST GOOD DEVELOPMENT LTD v. SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE AND OTHERS

Citation

HARVEST GOOD DEVELOPMENT LTD v. SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE AND OTHERS
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV10/2007

The appeal was dismissed because the application to assert that ss.7(2) and 17 of the Limitation Ordinance are inconsistent with the Basic Law and to claim compensation from the private respondents was barred by the principle of finality in litigation: the constitutional point could and should have been taken in the earlier proceedings, and the Court of Final Appeal had already established that the Extension Ordinance did not alter the title or limitation position.
4 Nov 1998

GUIDO KARL WENK v. ALAN LEE GOLDSTEIN

Citation

GUIDO KARL WENK v. ALAN LEE GOLDSTEIN
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP3908/1997

The application for leave to serve the Notice of Appeal out of time was dismissed because the Defendant failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the delay, there was a history of delay and conscious decisions by solicitors not to serve, the appeal raised only arguable (not strong) points, and further delay would prejudice the Plaintiff and undermine finality.

Hong Kong Case Law

MAYER CORPORATION DEVELOPMENT INTERNATIONAL LTD v. ALLIANCE FINANCIAL INTELLIGENCE LTD AND OTHERS

LAI YING ON v. SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE for and on behalf of THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE

WAN HOW WAN v. WAN HOI WEI

WONG TAK YIU v. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE

TREASURE SPOT FINANCE CO LTD v. LI CHIK MING AND ANOTHER

HARVEST GOOD DEVELOPMENT LTD v. SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE AND OTHERS

GUIDO KARL WENK v. ALAN LEE GOLDSTEIN