Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Originating process

Legal area

Court

5 Sept 2023

UBS AG v. CHINA METAL RECYCLING (HOLDINGS) LIMITED (IN LIQUIDATION) AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2023] HKCFA 29
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FAMV251/2023

Committing a s.275 claim by writ in breach of WU r 58(1) is a formal defect or irregularity falling within WU r 209(1) and is curable unless the defendant proves substantial injustice that cannot be remedied; UBS AG did not establish an accrued limitation defence or sufficient substantial injustice, so curative relief was appropriate and leave to appeal was refused.
4 Feb 2010

HO CHI MEI v. HO CHE YING AND ANOTHER

Citation

HO CHI MEI v. HO CHE YING AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1002/2008

Having considered the nature of the dispute, parties' conduct, the settlement terms and practical effect on a modest estate, the court held that costs of both parties should be borne by the estate and, to avoid taxation, fixed the Plaintiff's costs at $300,000 and the Defendants' costs at $91,000 pursuant to Order 62 Rule 9(4)(b); no personal costs order was made against the Defendants.
22 Jan 1999

LUK SUET SHI CISSY v. WOO CHIN MAN

Citation

LUK SUET SHI CISSY v. WOO CHIN MAN
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP345/1999

The ex parte injunction was valid and will not be discharged: the ex parte summons can be treated as an originating process for these purposes, an undertaking as to damages is not fatal in this domestic violence context, and the High Court has jurisdiction to grant relief under the Ordinance; the matter is to be transferred to the District Court under s.40 of the District Court Ordinance.
14 Nov 1996

DRAGON CAPITAL PARTNERS L.P. v. MERRILL LYNCH CAPITAL SERVICES INC.

Citation

DRAGON CAPITAL PARTNERS L.P. v. MERRILL LYNCH CAPITAL SERVICES INC.
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA10161/1994

There was only one cause (HCA 10161/94); the pre-action interlocutory application was part of that action despite erroneous assignment of an HCMP number, and therefore there were not two or more pending causes or matters required for consolidation under Ord.4 r.9(1); appeal dismissed.

Hong Kong Case Law

UBS AG v. CHINA METAL RECYCLING (HOLDINGS) LIMITED (IN LIQUIDATION) AND ANOTHER

HO CHI MEI v. HO CHE YING AND ANOTHER

LUK SUET SHI CISSY v. WOO CHIN MAN

DRAGON CAPITAL PARTNERS L.P. v. MERRILL LYNCH CAPITAL SERVICES INC.