Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Noise nuisance

Legal area

Court

21 Oct 2025

香港特別行政區訴黃桂強

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 4891
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA475/2024

On a re-hearing the court was satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant had control and possession of the two speakers (established by label, telephone admission and on-scene acknowledgement) and that those speakers emitted broadcasts which caused annoyance to the prosecution witness; ownership plus admission and presence established sufficient control to convict and good motive was no defence.
21 May 2024

SHUM CHUN TUNG v. TO YING LAM AILEEN AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2024] HKDC 795
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ2785/2022

The application for an interlocutory injunction was refused because plaintiff failed to produce objective contemporaneous evidence demonstrating the alleged nuisance continued after 4 October 2023; oral assertions at the bar lacked weight; the proposed abatement measures were unproven and there was a real risk the injunction would unduly infringe the defendant’s enjoyment of her flat; accordingly the balance of convenience favoured refusal and costs were ordered against the plaintiff.
12 Jun 2023

CHOW YUET MUI TWINKY AND OTHERS v. ISS EASTPOINT PROPERTY MANAGEMENT LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 1561
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCSA8/2021

Although the Deputy Adjudicator found that disturbance in the relevant period met the threshold for nuisance, the Upstairs Owners discharged the burden of proof that their renovation works were carried out reasonably with proper mitigation measures, defeating the claim; accordingly there was no sustainable basis to overturn the Decision on appeal.
26 Oct 2022

SUN YUEN WAI UWINS v. YEUNG SZE YAN AND OTHERS

Citation

[2022] HKDC 1196
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ1755/2019

Plaintiff failed to prove actionable nuisance: complaint record and management notes did not show noise was loud or excessive, plaintiff offered no objective measurements or independent witnesses, plaintiff found unreliable; hence no breach of DMC or liability for permitting nuisance and claims dismissed; counterclaim dismissed for non‑participation.
7 Jul 2022

LAI MEI LING v. WONG YEE MING ANTHONY AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2022] HKDC 582
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ854/2019

For prolonged, frequent and sometimes unforeseeable noise over approximately 3.5 years, the court awarded HK$60,000 as general damages, finding the overall degree of nuisance broadly comparable to Ng Yuen Han v Lam Fei Fui and applying the loss‑of‑amenity analogy; costs of the assessment were awarded to the plaintiff to be taxed if not agreed.
7 Jan 2022

KWAN CHI WAI v. KWAN WING TAT

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 75
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1020/2021

The summons was too vague and oppressive to be made; the plaintiff produced only subjective allegations without objective evidence of noise; the parties reached a practicable undertaking (no persistent noise over 65 dB from No.170 between 11pm and 7am) which the court accepted and therefore made no order on the summons; because the plaintiff could and should have proposed sensible workable terms and avoided the hearing the defendant was entitled to the costs of the hearing; consequently the application for leave to appeal against the costs order had no reasonable prospect and was refused.
3 Aug 2020

KWONG YIU KEUNG STANLEY AND ANOTHER v. CHIU SIN SHUM AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2020] HKDC 626
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ5745/2017

The court found on the balance of the evidence that the simulation test on 9 June 2020 was frustrated by the refusal of the first named defendant and/or defendants' expert to allow removal of floor/play mats as agreed in the parties' methodology, that defendants had effectively accepted the proposed methodology prior to the test by failing to object, and accordingly defendants must pay the costs of the plaintiffs' summons, to be taxed if not agreed, with a certificate for counsel.
5 Oct 2018

TIME SQUARE LTD v. LEE KWUN KIT t/a JL Music AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 2389
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2244/2018

An interim injunction was granted because the plaintiff established a prima facie case of trespass and breach of the Deed of Dedication by buskers causing noise and obstructions, substituted service was properly effected, and the balance of convenience (including public interest and the plaintiff's maintenance duties) favoured restraining the conduct pending determination as between the plaintiff and the 1st defendant.
26 Jan 2017

盧順寧對黃發安及另一人

Citation

盧順寧對黃發安及另一人
Court

District Court
Case number

DCPI1363/2014

The Court held that all six applications lacked legal and factual foundation, that four of the items were irrelevant or unsuitably late for insertion into the trial bundles, that the remaining two matters were trivial or already addressed and did not justify separate subpoenas or adjournment, and therefore the applications were dismissed and costs were awarded against the plaintiff assessed summarily and payable immediately.
20 Jul 2016

藍旭鋒先生對香港政府及另一人

Citation

藍旭鋒先生對香港政府及另一人
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA3057/2015

The court struck out the pleadings because, on their face and on the supporting affidavits, they disclosed no reasonable cause of action against the Government, were frivolous/vexatious and amounted to an abuse of court process (including duplicative litigation); no amendment could cure the defects and the claims against the Government were dismissed.