Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Finality of litigation

Legal area

Court

21 Nov 2025

何漢標對李妙桂

Citation

[2025] HKCA 1044
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV340/2023

Applicant failed to demonstrate that the proposed appeal raised any question of general or public importance or any other reason warranting determination by the Court of Final Appeal under s22(1)(b); the relevant proceedings and remedies had been exhausted and the alleged fraud/collusion and bias were unsupported by facts; the statutory demand complied with Bankruptcy Rules r44; no special circumstances justified an oral hearing; accordingly permission to appeal and the application to suspend the court's order were refused.
25 Nov 2021

李對吳

Citation

[2021] HKCA 1786
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP217/2020

The application was dismissed because it had no reasonable grounds and s.63B of the District Court Ordinance, as affirmed by the Court of Final Appeal in Po Hang, prevents appeals from Court of Appeal decisions on whether to grant leave to appeal.
29 Sept 2021

WAHYUNI v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 2915
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL442/2021

The RPO was maintained and the quash application dismissed because the applicant produced no new or reasonably arguable grounds for a subsequent non-refoulement claim, and her persistent attempts to relitigate previously finally determined issues constituted an abuse of process warranting the continued restriction.
13 Sept 2021

ASARE ERNEST OWUSU v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 2760
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1110/2021

The Director lawfully refused permission for a subsequent non-refoulement claim because the applicant failed to show a significant change of circumstances or that new material combined with prior material would give the claim a realistic prospect of success; there was no error of law or procedural unfairness in the decision and the applicant's repeated attempts to re-litigate a finally determined claim constituted an abuse of process warranting a Restricted Proceedings Order under section 27 High Court Ordinance and the court's inherent jurisdiction.
16 Apr 2020

BUMPER EAST LIMITED, ASPIAL INVESTMENT LIMITED v. MAYER CORPORATION DEVELOPMENT INTERNATIONAL LIMITED

Citation

[2020] HKCFA 11
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FAMV365/2019

Leave to appeal was refused because the application concerned an interlocutory strike out in which the relevant facts were disputed and important equitable questions depended on factual findings; the issues raised were not appropriate for determination at strike-out and were not plainly and obviously untenable, so no substantial point for the Court of Final Appeal was established.
4 Nov 2019

LEUNG TAT KIN, ANTHONY AND ANOTHER v. WONG TING WAI AND OTHERS

Citation

[2019] HKDC 1486
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ4234/2015

The Summons was dismissed because the applicant failed to provide a credible and timely explanation for total non-participation, the proposed defence lacked real prospects of success and was supported by late and unconvincing evidence, setting aside would cause prejudice and reopen concluded factual findings, and public interest favoured finality.
20 Sept 2019

朱對陳

Citation

[2019] HKFC 247
Court

Family Court
Case number

FCMC1206/2006

The application to restore the 2012 judgment summons was dismissed because the applicant had participated in and received payments under a comprehensive 2017 settlement that resulted in her receiving sums exceeding the computed arrears; equitable estoppel and the public interest in finality bar reopening the claim, and costs were awarded to respondent.
10 Apr 2019

劉嘉豪對香港房屋委員會

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 946
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCSA6/2019

The Tribunal correctly applied the one action estoppel principle and the applicant consented to suspension with understanding; no arguable legal error was disclosed, therefore leave to appeal under Cap.338 s28(1) is refused.
29 Mar 2019

ZHENG LI FENG v. SUPER WORTH INTERNATIONAL LID AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 868
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1043/2012

Application dismissed because the 2nd Defendant failed to provide strong, credible reasons or evidence showing a real prospect of success, her new allegations contradicted prior pleadings and witness statement, she had been represented until shortly before trial such that notice was imputed, and setting aside would unfairly prejudice the Plaintiff.
27 Nov 2018

蔡對姚

Citation

[2018] HKFC 210
Court

Family Court
Case number

FCMC11636/2008

The application for leave to appeal is refused because the appellant failed to show a reasonable prospect of success or any other compelling reason: he seeks effectively to overturn prior factual findings after having accepted and complied with them for years, bore the duty to verify payments, and provided no adequate basis to treat rent and childcare components as improperly determined; potential defects in service further weaken his case.