Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Interest of justice

Legal area

Court

2 Sept 2020

YEUNG KIU YING v. FAIRWOOD FAST FOOD LTD t/a FAIRWOOD

Citation

[2020] HKDC 715
Court

District Court
Case number

DCPI2016/2015

Leave to appeal was granted on proposed ground (1) because the sanctioned offer was held to be invalid for non‑compliance with Order 22 r5 and therefore an accompanying sanctioned payment cannot attract the costs consequences under Order 22; proposed ground (2) lacked a reasonable prospect of success because the plaintiff failed to discharge the burden of demonstrating that the EC Action costs provision made the costs order unjust; accordingly leave on ground (2) was refused and a costs order nisi was made apportioning costs between the grounds.
29 Jun 2020

RE KHAN MUHAMMAD ARSHAD

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 517
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL998/2018

Refuse extension of time and refuse leave to apply for judicial review because the applicant provided no good reason for the 10-month delay, failed to provide draft grounds or particulars demonstrating an arguable error, and thus there was no reasonable prospect of success nor any other reason in the interests of justice to hear the appeal.
2 May 2019

NG YUK PUI KELLY v. DUNG WAI MAN AND OTHERS

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 1157
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1826/2011

Although the children actively participated, provided some funding and their evidence was material and in parts false, the judge found Mrs Ng was the real party who controlled the defence; the children were motivated by filial duty and were prejudiced by lack of an early costs warning. Balancing the factors and exercising discretion under s52A(2), it was not in the interests of justice to order the children to pay Kelly's costs; consequently no costs order was made against the 4th‑6th defendants, but joinder and the enquiry were justified and the children were not awarded costs of the enquiry.
13 Sept 2017

JORA SISI OMAR v. JORA HARMIDAR OMAR

Citation

JORA SISI OMAR v. JORA HARMIDAR OMAR
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV209/2016

The appeal was dismissed because the applicant failed to show a substantial ground for set-off or interest of justice: mutuality for set-off was lacking because the 1 March 2017 costs order benefits the Director of Legal Aid who holds a first charge and no variation (written direction or court order) was shown; the applicant's reliance on prospective costs was speculative and premature; accordingly there is no proper basis to set aside the statutory demand.
28 Feb 2017

香港特別行政區訴楊春霞

Citation

香港特別行政區訴楊春霞
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC427/2015

The court refused to order a retrial because the appellant’s successful appeal was caused by the prosecution’s unduly narrow basis at trial; it would be unfair to require the appellant to face another prosecution for an offence that was neither egregious in amount nor role, she had already largely served the sentence, and refusing retrial would not materially harm the public interest.
17 Sept 2015

惠陽市新墟合興製衣廠 v. ELBEX VIDEO (HONG KONG) LTD

Citation

惠陽市新墟合興製衣廠 v. ELBEX VIDEO (HONG KONG) LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1950/2012

Leave to appeal was refused because the defendant failed to demonstrate a reasonable prospect of success and offered only a bare assertion on the interest of justice; the court was not satisfied there was any alternative jurisdictional basis for the trial other than O 36, r 1.
2 Oct 2013

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. CHOY BING WING

Citation

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. CHOY BING WING
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP260/2013

The application for leave to appeal was dismissed because the court found no arguable merit, the questions of law were unclear and there was no reason to hear the appeal in the interests of justice; the court exercised its discretion to release the transcript to the defendant but only on the defendant's undertakings to bear and restrict use of the transcript, and awarded costs to the plaintiff summarily assessed at HK$17,042.
21 Jan 2011

RE MS CLARE MONTGOMERY, QC

Citation

RE MS CLARE MONTGOMERY, QC<br>
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP2516/2010

The application was granted because the court concluded that the interest of justice required admission of overseas leading counsel who was not personally acquainted with the client and could therefore provide an objective view; this was compounded by the practical handicap that the applicant (a widely known local barrister) had limited local options, and substantial local involvement would remain through experienced junior counsel.