Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Leave to appeal standards

Legal area

Court

11 Mar 2025

CHEUNG KI LAM 對 CHOI TAK TAI 及另一人

Citation

[2025] HKDC 399
Court

District Court
Case number

DCPI2504/2019

The application for leave to appeal was refused because the plaintiff failed to demonstrate a reasonable prospect of success or any other ground justifying an appeal: the proposed grounds were primarily disagreement with the trial judge's factual and quantum findings, re-argument of matters already considered, and did not show any plain error, misapprehension or omission of critical evidence by the trial judge; accordingly leave was denied and costs were awarded to the second defendant (summary assessment HKD 38,854).
24 Jan 2025

SIN CHAN KAM 對 THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF WAI SUN BUILDING

Citation

[2025] HKLdT 2
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDMP1/2023

The tribunal held the injunction required, by its terms and purpose, that the respondent achieve the result of stopping water seepage; on the evidence and beyond reasonable doubt the respondent had not achieved that result by the deadline and manifested a contemptuous state of mind; contractors and consultants were held to have been authorised to act for the respondent so their conduct and knowledge were attributable; accordingly the committal and related orders were justified and leave to appeal was refused.
4 Dec 2024

KONE ELEVATOR (HK) LTD v. CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY COUNCIL

Citation

[2024] HKCA 1124
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP64/2024

Leave to appeal was granted because the questions on the statutory construction of "construction operations", the interplay with the Building Ordinance/requirement of an authorized person and the meaning of "stage" or "part" raise important and novel issues with industry‑wide implications and the appellant's submissions on those points are reasonably arguable; additionally there is a reasonable prospect of success on the point that the Judge reversed the onus of proof, but new factual points lacking evidential basis (items 1.1.2, 1.2.2 and 1.5) cannot be permitted without proper evidence.
5 Apr 2024

黃堅華對袁桂馨及另二人

Citation

[2024] HKDC 545
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ6050/2018

The court held there was no real prospect of success on appeal because the trial judge's factual findings that the third person was not a party to the lease and that defendants failed to prove authorization or acquiescence were supported by the evidence and not plainly wrong; the defendants had not pleaded or adduced necessary evidence on authorization/acquiescence and bore the burden on those issues; the lease was unregistered and thus not enforceable against the plaintiff purchaser; the valuation report, while not reflecting unusual lease terms, was properly used to assess occupation rent.…
31 Mar 2023

楊對曽

Citation

[2023] HKFC 63
Court

Family Court
Case number

FCMC2312/2017

Applying s63A and the established appellate standard of deference to discretionary decisions, the court found neither party demonstrated a reasonable prospect of success nor other compelling reasons to hear the appeals; the alleged factual errors were either misreadings of the judgment or immaterial to the discretionary outcome, so both leave applications were refused and a provisional costs order was made.
23 Dec 2021

NG YUI TONG v. TAIKOO SHING (MANAGEMENT) LTD

Citation

[2021] HKCA 1942
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP218/2021

Leave to appeal was granted only in respect of the construction issue whether the activities (other than Tower Festive Decorations) fall within the defined scope of 'management' in the DMC because that raises a reasonably arguable question of law; leave was refused on the grounds relating to the planters and the budget items because those grounds were either new and not raised at trial or without arguable merit and the Judge's factual findings on approval and common parts stand.
26 Nov 2021

劉對唐

Citation

[2021] HKFC 237
Court

Family Court
Case number

FCMC5078/2020

Leave was refused because the father failed to demonstrate any legal error, misapprehension of fact, consideration of irrelevant matters, failure to exercise discretion, or other demonstrable mistake in the trial judge's exercise of discretion; accordingly the proposed appeal lacked a reasonable prospect of success under s63A(2).
7 Jul 2021

K. H. FOUNDATIONS LTD v. SZE FUNG ENGINEERING LTD

Citation

[2021] HKCA 970
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP222/2020

The Court refused KH's application for leave to appeal because the questions were either not pure questions of law arising out of the award or not of general importance; the Court of First Instance was not plainly wrong in refusing leave because the arbitrator's constructions were within the ambit of the parties' pleadings and not 'obviously wrong' nor 'open to serious doubt', and KH failed to meet the statutory thresholds for leave under Schedule 2 and s14AA Cap 4.
4 Feb 2015

KAM LEUNG SUI KWAN, PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF KAM KWAN SING,THE DECEASED v. KAM KWAN LAI AND OTHERS

Citation

KAM LEUNG SUI KWAN, PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF KAM KWAN SING,THE DECEASED v. KAM KWAN LAI AND OTHERS
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FAMV49/2014

The Court granted leave to appeal because the distilled questions about jurisdiction over an unregistered foreign company used and directed from Hong Kong and the extent to which subsidiaries' affairs are relevant raise issues of great general or public importance; leave was also granted exceptionally under s.22(1)(b) to determine whether the Court of Appeal was correct to overturn the trial judge's finding of unfair prejudice in relation to the 5th respondent, as resolution of that issue may be necessary to dispose of the appeal.
16 Jan 2015

PENNY’S BAY INVESTMENT COMPANY LTD v．DIRECTOR OF LANDS

Citation

PENNY’S BAY INVESTMENT COMPANY LTD v．DIRECTOR OF LANDS
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDMR1/2005

The Tribunal exercised its discretion under the Lands Tribunal Ordinance to grant leave to appeal only on discrete issues that raised points of law or arguable misinterpretation of the Court of Final Appeal's directions (applicant Grounds 1,3,4; respondent Grounds 2,4,8,12,13) and refused leave on grounds it treated as matters of opinion or unsupported challenges to factual findings; costs of the application ordered to be costs in the cause.