Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Interlocutory application

Legal area

Court

12 Jul 2024

XY, LLC v. JESSE ZHU (aka JIA-BEI ZHU and JESSE JIA-BEI ZHU) AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2024] HKCA 653
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP337/2023

Leave to appeal was refused because the Judge lawfully and reasonably concluded, on the material including prior findings in the s21M proceedings and available documentary and witness evidence, that the plaintiff had a very high probability of success against GNT and the proposed ground of appeal had no reasonable prospect of success; there was no error of principle or plainly wrong exercise of discretion warranting appellate intervention.
12 Oct 2022

吳艷嫦及另一人對李雪芬主任及另一人

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 3485
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1164/2011

The summons to discharge the 23 December 2011 restrictive litigation order was dismissed because the applicant provided no credible or new evidence of a material change in circumstances; prior repeated refusals of leave demonstrated the order's continuing necessity to prevent vexatious or ungrounded proceedings.
26 Aug 2022

INCU GLOBAL LTD AND ANOTHER v. D\' AGUILAR CAPITAL MANGEMENT LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 2633
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA853/2018

Master To’s order, interpreted sensibly in context, and the court’s discretionary power permitted the plaintiffs to file an affirmation exhibiting Skybound’s unsworn draft; an unsworn draft produced by an opposing party and exhibited in an affirmation is admissible as hearsay for interlocutory purposes under RHC Order 41 r.5(2), with defects affecting weight not admissibility; accordingly striking out was inappropriate and leave to file was granted.
1 Jun 2022

ZHENG YANQIU 對 NEW WORLD FIRST BUS SERVICES LTD

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 1626
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCPI128/2021

The court held that documents from the regional court action are likely relevant to the High Court dispute on the claimant's health and income; there was no evidence that medical expert reports or amended schedules existed so disclosure of those items could not be ordered, but witness statements and court orders were either likely to exist or obtainable and therefore the claimant was ordered to disclose them within 28 days or to swear an affidavit/non-religious oath explaining whether such documents are or were in her possession, custody or control and, if not, when and what happened to them.
13 Sept 2021

CHEN HONGQING v. LIU YIU KEUNG STEPHEN AND OTHERS

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 2746
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1699/2019

The court found Jinan Group had satisfied the threshold for joinder and that Chen HQ's opposition to the Jinan Summons was unmeritorious; given the severable and self-contained nature of the Jinan Summons the Costs Order Nisi was varied so that Chen HQ must pay costs of the Jinan Summons incurred after 25 March 2020 to Jinan Group forthwith (to be taxed if not agreed) with certificate for two counsel, save that other costs of the Jinan Summons remain in the cause; Chen HQ must also bear the costs of the variation application to be dealt with as part of the Jinan Summons costs with certificate…
11 Sept 2018

WONG YUK TUNG v. WONG PO LING AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2018] HKCA 597
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP620/2017

The court dismissed the reconsideration summons because it had no jurisdiction to reconsider a judgment refusing an extension of time to appeal under the applicable rules (Order 59 rule 14A governs extension applications and contains no reconsideration provision; rule 2A(7) applies only to leave to appeal), and even if it had jurisdiction the application would be refused on the merits as the delay was substantial and inexcusable and the proposed appeal lacked sufficient prospects; the presumption of advancement relied on was not raised at trial and evidence supported the trial judge's finding…
2 Nov 2017

CHEUNG CHAU SHING v. PES (HONG KONG) LTD

Citation

CHEUNG CHAU SHING v. PES (HONG KONG) LTD
Court

District Court
Case number

DCEC1014/2017

The summons was dismissed because section 10 relief is final and cannot be granted on an interlocutory application relying solely on affidavit evidence; the applicant must pursue the claim at trial where evidence, including expert evidence, can be heard.
21 Sept 2017

MAK KUM KOK JAMES v. MICHAEL MONAGHAN JOHNSON

Citation

MAK KUM KOK JAMES v. MICHAEL MONAGHAN JOHNSON
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ3852/2016

The Defence and supporting affirmations sufficiently pleaded triable issues (misrepresentation, duty to mitigate) such that the Order 14 application was inappropriate; accordingly the court exercised its discretion to order costs to the defendant forthwith with a Certificate for Counsel, but refused summary assessment because the bill contained numerous items and a substantial amount better dealt with by taxation.
27 Jul 2016

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

Citation

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

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV263/2005

The application was interlocutory and therefore properly determined on written submissions under Order 59 Rule 14A; the applicant failed to identify any question of great general or public importance nor to demonstrate exceptional circumstances under s.22 of the Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, accordingly leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal was refused and the motion dismissed.
22 Jun 2016

GREAT LOYAL LOGISTICS LTD v. CHAN YICK YUI t/a MING FAI MOTOR CAR ENGINEERING

Citation

GREAT LOYAL LOGISTICS LTD v. CHAN YICK YUI t/a MING FAI MOTOR CAR ENGINEERING
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ2415/2013

Leave to file the narrowly focused witness statement was granted because the evidence was relevant to a live issue (whether the plastic bag pre-existed DCH inspection), the statement was limited in scope so would not jeopardise the 4-day trial, and defendant was afforded 28 days to reply; however the plaintiff’s failure to explain the lateness justified adverse costs treatment so costs of the Summons were ordered to the defendant to be taxed if not agreed on an indemnity basis.