Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Leave to defend

Legal area

Court

28 Apr 2026

LI LI HONG v. CHEN DI AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2367
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2091/2024

Although the normal order on granting unconditional leave to defend is costs in the cause, the court found strong reasons to depart given the history, the significance of the dispute and the inherent weaknesses of the plaintiff's case. After defendants filed evidence on 10 February 2025 the plaintiff ought to have ceased the O.14 proceedings within a reasonable period (two weeks, i.e. by 24 February 2025). The plaintiff's persistence after that date caused wasted costs. The proper order is that the plaintiff bears defendants' costs of the O.14 summons incurred after 24 February 2025, the rema…
17 Mar 2026

DBS BANK (HONG KONG) LTD v. HONOUR ELITE CORPORATION LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 1604
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP72/2025

The court varied the nisi costs order and directed DBS to pay the Defendants' interlocutory costs because the Conversion Summonses raised substantial triable issues (notably the right to call loans and the prevention principle) that had been signalled in correspondence and affirmations such that the originating summons procedure was inappropriate; DBS should have anticipated the factual disputes and its resistance to conversion justified an award of interlocutory costs to the Defendants, with assessed sums fixed by the court.
17 Mar 2026

DBS BANK (HONG KONG) LTD v. HONOUR ELITE CORPORATION LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 1604
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP70/2025

The court exercised its discretion to vary the Costs Order nisi because, on the facts and correspondence, the plaintiff should have anticipated substantial factual disputes (notably the right to call loans and the prevention principle/breach of confidentiality) that made the originating summons procedure inappropriate; accordingly DBS Bank was ordered to pay the defendants' costs of the Conversion Summonses (including the hearing) and specified costs for the Costs Summons and Time Summons.
17 Mar 2026

DBS BANK (HONG KONG) LTD v. HONOUR ELITE CORPORATION LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 1604
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP69/2025

The court exercised its discretion to vary the Costs Order nisi and ordered DBS Bank to pay the defendants' costs because the defendants had raised triable defences (no right to call loans and breach of the prevention principle) supported by correspondence and affirmations that should have put the plaintiff on notice that the originating summons procedure was inappropriate; DBS Bank's resistance was therefore penalized. The court assessed the costs statements on a broad‑brush basis, disallowed certain items (eg unnecessary solicitor duplication and late filing correspondence) and fixed awards…
13 Mar 2026

TOTAL TREASURE DEVELOPMENT LTD AND ANOTHER v. RHT INDUSTRIES LTD

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 1165
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1746/2024

The judge concluded the plaintiffs' proposed appeal lacks a reasonable prospect of success because the decision to grant the defendant unconditional leave to defend was based on fact-sensitive, triable issues (notably on implied terms and a time-bar defence) that the Court of Appeal would not readily disturb; therefore leave to appeal and a stay were properly refused.
12 Feb 2026

TOTAL TREASURE DEVELOPMENT LTD AND ANOTHER v. RHT INDUSTRIES LTD

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 818
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1746/2024

The court refused to vary the costs order nisi and ordered that the costs both below and of the appeal be in the cause because (i) the defendant advanced a number of arguments both below and on appeal that were not reasonably arguable and would have caused substantial costs, (ii) the application and appeal were finely balanced, and (iii) the usual practice of ordering costs in the cause where unconditional leave to defend is granted can be applied on appeal if fair and just in all the circumstances.
29 Sept 2025

JIANGSU SHAGANG MATERIALS TRADING CO., LTD v. DAILY-TECH HONGKONG CO., LTD

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 4377
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1093/2022

Defendant failed to establish any bona fide triable issue: contemporaneous documents evidenced Defendant's request or acquiescence to the Guarantee giving rise to a presumption of indemnity which Defendant did not credibly rebut; there was no evidence Defendant was not liable to Global; clause 3(a)(ii) ceased to operate upon Global's Notice of Termination (confirmed by email) so Plaintiff's claim was not premature; accordingly summary judgment was appropriate and judgment entered for Plaintiff for HK$401,185,002.95 plus interest and costs nisi.
25 Jul 2025

CHIU MEI CHERRY v. YIP NGAN YUK AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2025] HKCA 677
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV468/2024

The Court of Appeal held that the judge at first instance erred in granting summary judgment because credible triable issues existed on testamentary capacity, knowledge and approval and undue influence given (inter alia) the close temporal proximity and radical departure of the July 2022 will from prior wills, disputed factual allegations about care and payment of medical expenses, the unexplained involvement of solicitors, Ms Cho's refusal to draft a further will, and apparent issues in the psychiatric cognitive assessment; accordingly summary disposal was inappropriate and the defendants we…
14 Jan 2025

CHUI LAP PAN AND ANOTHER v. CHUNG CHEUK WAI

Citation

[2025] HKDC 94
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ1218/2024

On the evidence before the court (affirmations and pleadings) there existed genuine, contested factual issues about whether the defendant sent or instructed others to send the threatening letters; those issues required oral evidence and evaluation of credibility and should not be resolved summarily. Accordingly amendment and leave to file were allowed but summary judgment was refused and the defendant granted unconditional leave to defend.
9 Jan 2025

WU YUAN HONG v. CHINA ZENITH CHEMICAL GROUP LTD

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 228
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2082/2023

The Defendant's 'evidence of payment' defence was speculative, self-contradictory and not capable of belief when measured against objective documents (Register entry, issued certificate and board resolution), so no leave to defend on that issue; however, there is a bona fide triable issue of contractual interpretation as to Clause 4 (prepaid interest to the first bondholder), and the Defendant is granted unconditional leave to defend that discrete issue; the Master's conditional order is set aside and judgment for principal and accrued interest is entered accordingly.