Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Mental incapacity

Legal area

Court

30 Dec 2024

張家怡對張加官及另一人

Citation

[2024] HKDC 2158
Court

District Court
Case number

DCMP5082/2023

The court exercised its discretion to permit CHU PO CHUN to be joined as second defendant because there are numerous disputed facts not resolvable on the existing documentary record, her case is materially based on evidence produced by the first defendant which may be self‑serving, and because she lacks mental capacity the court must not prematurely dismiss her claims without ensuring her interests are fully considered; accordingly joinder was appropriate.
15 Feb 2024

LIE MING, the Committee of the Estate of HJF v. FOREVER TEAM CORPORATION LTD

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 520
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP2074/2023

The court found it was impracticable to convene a general meeting under the company’s articles because the sole other shareholder nominee refused to cooperate and no director existed; accordingly, exercising its discretion under s.570 the court ordered an EGM be convened with ancillary directions (including treating the Committee’s attendance as a quorum and permitting notice by the Committee) so that the Committee may be appointed director and take steps to preserve the company’s assets.
19 May 2023

LAU MING FAI v. JONES LANG LASALLE MANAGEMENT SERVICES LTD

Citation

[2023] HKDC 675
Court

District Court
Case number

DCPI518/2022

Medical evidence established the plaintiff was a mentally incapacitated person before the writ was issued, therefore RDC Order 80 r 3(5) did not apply; an order appointing a next friend was not required under r 3(2); the plaintiff's solicitor's certificate was defective for failing to state grounds of knowledge and whether any person authorized under Part II of the Mental Health Ordinance exists; summons dismissed and solicitor ordered to file an amended certificate.
27 Jul 2021

RE NLS

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 2203
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMH4/2020

On the balance of probabilities the court found NLS to be a mentally incapacitated person within the meaning of Part II MHO because the court‑observed interview, supported by the independent Court Expert (Dr Chung) and applicant expert (Dr Wong), demonstrated significant impairments (notably failure to recall large gifts/withdrawals, poor insight into legal expenditures and inability to manage complex business/rental decisions) so that NLS cannot manage and administer his property and affairs.
12 Jun 2020

RE EDWA

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 1143
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMH43/2019

The Court determined it was not prepared to find a power to waive the statutory requirements of s7(5) and in any event would not exercise any such power in this case: the medical certificate produced was not by a Hong Kong registered medical practitioner nor HA‑approved as required, the applicant had not demonstrated that no practicable alternative (including remote/video assessment) had been attempted, and existing authorities did not justify dispensing with the two‑certificate requirement; therefore the application cannot proceed under s7 absent compliant medical certificates, though the ap…
10 Jan 2020

CHENG YUEN FAI (a mentally incapacitated person suing by his son and next friend CHENG KWOK WAI) v. CHENG KWOK LEUNG

Citation

[2020] HKDC 62
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ2929/2018

Because the prior S17 decision conclusively rejected the factual allegation of a promise by the father to return the property, issue estoppel bars the defendant from re‑raising that central factual allegation; Henderson v Henderson bars additional reliance/detriment allegations that could have been advanced earlier; the father was a mentally incapacitated person at the relevant time and could not validly grant permission to occupy; therefore the defendant raised no bona fide triable issues and summary judgment for the plaintiff was appropriate ordering vacant possession, return of title deeds…
13 Aug 2019

KOO YIK CHUNG by KOO KIN WAH his next friend v. DILIGENT WIN LTD (In liquidation)

Citation

[2019] HKDC 1187
Court

District Court
Case number

DCEC926/2007

Having personally interviewed the applicant and on the basis of the two psychiatrists' reports the judge was satisfied that the applicant has ceased to be an MIP and therefore granted the orders in terms of paragraphs 1 to 3 of the summons (removal of the father as next friend and payment out to the applicant); costs of the summons were reserved and directions were made for the former solicitors to explain non-compliance and for service on the Director of Legal Aid.
7 Apr 2017

LAM MAN CHIU v. HONG KONG FLOURTECH LTD

Citation

LAM MAN CHIU v. HONG KONG FLOURTECH LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCPI1083/2006

The action was dismissed because the plaintiff failed for over five years to comply with the Setdown Order without satisfactory explanation, giving rise to the inference he had no genuine intention to proceed, and that continued delay would materially prejudice the defendant; dismissal for abuse of process was therefore a proper exercise of the court's discretion and costs were awarded and ordered taxed under the Legal Aid Regulations.
15 Jun 2016

HKSAR v. L.C.H.

Citation

HKSAR v. L.C.H.
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC435/2015

Leave to appeal against sentence was granted on the narrow ground that the sentencing judge may have erred in stipulating and inadequately explaining the five‑year starting point and in failing expressly to account for the applicant's volunteered admission that led to the second charge; other grounds (double counting, equating to rape, guilty plea credit) lacked merit because the judge treated overlapping factors as one consideration and properly applied guilty plea discount.
21 Jul 2015

CKB v. CKKK

Citation

CKB v. CKKK
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP799/2015

The Registered Proceedings (HCMP 704/2015) constitute a registrable lis pendens affecting M's property and there is no evidence they were not prosecuted bona fide or any other good cause to vacate under s19; accordingly the application to vacate registration is dismissed and the registration remains.