Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Jurisdictional limit of district court

Legal area

Court

24 Aug 2020

OR BIK YUK v. MAXWAY CORPORATION LIMITED t/a CHEUNG HING FOODS MART

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 2147
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCPI621/2017

Defendant failed to beat the Sanctioned Offer and the court found no injustice in applying the prescribed consequences under Order 22 r 24 RHC; accordingly the Plaintiff's costs order was varied to High Court scale up to 2 December 2018 and District Court scale thereafter, costs after 11 October 2019 to be taxed on an indemnity basis, and interest on costs awarded but limited to 5% per annum from 11 October 2019; the Defendant's summons seeking no order as to costs was dismissed.
30 Aug 2019

SOSHILA KESWANI v. MOTIRAM KESWANI

Citation

[2019] HKDC 1166
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ579/2013

The court refused leave to appeal and refused a stay because the plaintiff failed to show a reasonable prospect of success: fresh evidence did not meet Ladd and Marshall conditions and was immaterial to the limited declaration granted; the Declaration was properly confined to the plaintiff and defendant and within or retained by District Court jurisdiction under s41(6); the finding of non est factum was supported by the evidence and not plainly wrong; accordingly both applications were dismissed and costs awarded to defendant.
23 Nov 2010

ANSAR MOHAMMAD v. GLOBAL LEGEND TRANSPORTATION LTD

Citation

ANSAR MOHAMMAD v. GLOBAL LEGEND TRANSPORTATION LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCPI1057/2007

The Master held that the Plaintiff did not have a reasonable prospect of recovering in excess of the District Court limit when the writ was issued given the evidence and pre‑existing ECC receipt, and therefore ordered the Plaintiff's costs up to 13 May 2008 to be taxed on the District Court scale; the Defendant was entitled to costs from 14 May 2008 on High Court scale but these were reduced by 20% because the Defendant failed to respond to reasonable mediation proposals and did not provide a satisfactory explanation for that refusal.
14 Sept 2009

LEUNG CHOI PING v. LEUNG KING CHOI AND ANOTHER

Citation

LEUNG CHOI PING v. LEUNG KING CHOI AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCPI975/2006

On the facts available at the commencement of the action (taking full liability valuation), the Plaintiff had a reasonable prospect of obtaining an award in excess of the District Court jurisdiction given assessed PSLA (in the region of $500,000–$550,000) and future loss of earnings; accordingly costs up to and including 2 October 2008 should be taxed on the High Court scale.
16 Oct 1997

HKSAR v. TO YUK SUM

Citation

HKSAR v. TO YUK SUM
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC247/1997

The Court held that the judge properly applied the guilty plea discount to the individual sentence starting points rather than to the District Court's 7-year jurisdictional cap, and that the aggregate sentence of six years was within jurisdiction and not manifestly excessive; the appeal is dismissed.
24 Oct 1996

R. v. NG YUEN JAN, DANNY

Citation

R. v. NG YUEN JAN, DANNY
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC357/1996

Where the appropriate starting point for sentence in the District Court exceeds the statutory maximum of seven years the judge must still determine the correct starting point but must calculate the discount for a guilty plea from the seven year maximum; applying that principle and giving a substantial discount for an early plea the Court varied the sentence from six years to five years imprisonment.
26 Aug 1983

LIU MING SUNG v. LIU LEE YUK CHING AND ANOTHER

Citation

LIU MING SUNG v. LIU LEE YUK CHING AND ANOTHER
Court

Family Court
Case number

FCMC2777/1981

Stay granted on all proceedings except custody/access until (1) petitioner properly formulates his proprietary claim in the Victoria District Court as required by the Full Bench and (2) petitioner pays the respondent's solicitor-and-client taxed costs of $438,000 or provides satisfactory security or obtains a High Court order permitting payment by instalments; respondent discharged unconditionally from undertakings due to delay caused by petitioner.
3 Apr 1980

WONG SAI-NANG AND ANOTHER v. THE QUEEN

Citation

WONG SAI-NANG AND ANOTHER v. THE QUEEN
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC1063/1979

Under s.82 of the District Court Ordinance a District Court cannot lawfully impose consecutive sentences which in aggregate exceed seven years; therefore the six‑year consecutive term was unlawful when added to the existing four‑year term and must be reduced so that the aggregate does not exceed seven years.