Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Interlocutory procedure

Legal area

Court

20 Sept 2023

PAMELA ALDRED AND OTHERS v. CASTLE FIDUCIARY LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 2366
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA643/2022

The Trustee failed to establish any proper basis to vary the Costs Order Nisi: the costs ordered related to the Trustee's insistence on pressing for a summary determination of the striking-out summons at that interlocutory stage, not the substantive merits, and the Plaintiffs did not consent to substantive disposal; accordingly the Costs Order Nisi is made absolute and the Trustee must pay the costs of the Summons to the Plaintiffs to be summarily assessed.
12 Feb 2009

CHAN KIT HO v. WUN TAK SHUN AND OTHERS

Citation

CHAN KIT HO v. WUN TAK SHUN AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCPI845/2006

Applying the interlocutory principle that disputed expert reports are assessed on their face value with weight reserved to the trial judge, the Master ruled the Flora Lee homecare report just qualifies to be placed before the trial judge for perusal; the trial judge must determine the expert's qualifications and the weight to be given, with particular regard that portions addressing dietary requirements, necessity for a 24‑hour caregiver and consumable equipment may assist the judge.
22 Jul 2008

JUNG SCIENCE INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY CO LTD v. ZTE CORPORATION

Citation

JUNG SCIENCE INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY CO LTD v. ZTE CORPORATION
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCT14/2008

The application was dismissed because, on the objective fair‑minded and informed observer test, the disclosed social and professional relationship between the arbitrator and opposing counsel did not give rise to a real possibility of bias and the arbitrator's conduct and refusal to answer extensive questions did not, cumulatively, establish justifiable doubts as to his impartiality or independence under the Model Law.
13 Feb 2006

ORIENTAL OVERSEAS MARITIME SERVICES LTD v. THE OWNERS AND/OR DEMISE CHARTERERS OF THE SHIP OR VESSEL "FAN YUN 123 (番運123)"

Citation

ORIENTAL OVERSEAS MARITIME SERVICES LTD v. THE OWNERS AND/OR DEMISE CHARTERERS OF THE SHIP OR VESSEL "FAN YUN 123 (番運123)"
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAJ265/2005

Given the urgency (vessel under arrest), absence of a request for cross-examination and the late stage at hearing, the court must determine the in rem jurisdictional issue on the affidavits before it rather than ordering a full trial with pleadings and live evidence; the court proceeded to decide the matter on the material filed.
23 Jan 2001

Mount Top Management Ltd. v. Charter General Holdings Ltd.

Citation

Mount Top Management Ltd. v. Charter General Holdings Ltd.
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ16001/2000

The judge held that on the evidence the plaintiffs had furnished valuable consideration within s.27(1)(a) because consideration moved from the plaintiffs to Changchun Charter (including the plaintiffs agreeing to perform and Mr Lai travelling to demonstrate), following the approach in Diamond v Graham and Kao Lee & Yip; consequently the plaintiffs demonstrated a high probability of success and the refusal to order security for costs was correct, so the appeal was dismissed.
4 May 1998

LEUNG KWOK FU AND OTHERS v. KONG MEAU CO. LTD.

Citation

LEUNG KWOK FU AND OTHERS v. KONG MEAU CO. LTD.
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA4427/1997

The objection was upheld because the affirmation contained numerous assertions without stated sources or grounds and the court would not infer personal knowledge from the deponent's position as manager; therefore the affirmation did not comply with the rules for affidavits in interlocutory proceedings and must be cured by a further affirmation, necessitating adjournment.
5 Oct 1990

GREAT PERFECT INVESTMENT LTD. v. LEUNG YAT WAH AND OTHERS

Citation

GREAT PERFECT INVESTMENT LTD. v. LEUNG YAT WAH AND OTHERS
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV99/1990

The Court allowed the appeals, holding the High Court judge erred in treating motions to strike out as inappropriate simply because they were brought by Notice of Motion rather than by summons before a Master; there is no rule or Practice Direction in Hong Kong preventing a judge from hearing such motions and a judge should not, by individual ruling, impose a new practice direction; the proper course is to restore the motions to the High Court for hearing; the Court of Appeal declined to hear the substantive striking‑out applications because it would be exercising original jurisdiction not co…
16 May 1990

THE LESLIE FAY CO, INCORPORATION t/a BRECKENRIDGE SPORTSWEAR DIVISION v. CHEERIO LTD

Citation

THE LESLIE FAY CO, INCORPORATION t/a BRECKENRIDGE SPORTSWEAR DIVISION v. CHEERIO LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA4505/1989

The appeal is allowed and the plaintiff, being non-resident, is ordered to give security for costs because the subsidiary's assets are legally those of the subsidiary not the plaintiff; absent exceptional circumstances or a very high probability on the merits, the normal rule requiring security for non-resident plaintiffs applies.
16 Jan 1990

MADAM CHENG WAI MAN AND ANOTHER v. MADAM CHAN YING AND ANOTHER

Citation

MADAM CHENG WAI MAN AND ANOTHER v. MADAM CHAN YING AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV136/1989

The appeal was dismissed because the judge correctly concluded the particulars supplied were insufficient or unclear and properly exercised his discretion to require adequate consolidated particulars; the Master was wrong to treat the summons as superseded by the late and inadequate material.