Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Practice direction

Legal area

Court

24 Jul 2023

RE KAZI AFSAR UDDIN AHMED AND OTHERS

Citation

[2023] HKCA 878
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV87/2023

The Court refused leave to appeal because the applicants failed to identify any question of great general or public importance under s22(1)(b) HKCFAO and failed to particularise any specific error or new evidence sufficient to warrant the Court of Final Appeal's consideration; general, fact‑specific allegations and re‑runs of prior arguments do not meet the statutory threshold.
13 Jun 2023

PHAM TIEN DUNG v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

Citation

[2023] HKCA 723
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP545/2022

The Court dismissed the application for leave to appeal because the applicant failed to show the intended appeal raised any issue of great general or public importance, failed to demonstrate any prospect of success, and filed the Notice of Motion outside the statutory 28-day period under section 24 of Cap 484 without explaining the delay; consequently leave to appeal to the CFA was refused.
30 Mar 2023

RE BALINGASA EDNA BAGACINA

Citation

[2023] HKCA 452
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV348/2022

The Court refused to extend time because the applicant failed to show good and sufficient grounds for the over‑one‑month delay and her intended appeal was plainly without merit and did not raise any question of great general or public importance under s22(1)(b) HKCFAO; accordingly the out‑of‑time Notice of Motion was dismissed.
23 Mar 2023

RE GOVIND SINGH

Citation

[2023] HKCA 402
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV132/2021

The Notice of Motion for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal is dismissed because the applicant failed to identify any question of great general or public importance under s22(1)(b) HKCFAO and his allegations were bare, vague and unsupported by evidence, rendering the intended appeal plainly without merit.
10 Nov 2022

RE MARQUEZ IMELDA M.

Citation

[2022] HKCA 1648
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV210/2022

The application for leave was dismissed because the applicant failed to demonstrate that the intended appeal raised a question of great general or public importance under s22(1)(b) Cap 484 and failed to show any prospects of success; the written submissions did not specify alleged inaccuracies in the COI and there was no reason to depart from determining the application on the papers under Practice Direction 2.1.
6 Nov 2019

MJN (formerly known as MJS) v. TMN

Citation

[2019] HKFC 283
Court

Family Court
Case number

FCMC2131/2019

Applying the objective fair‑minded informed observer test, the transcript showed sufficient comment and demeanor that could lead such an observer to conclude a possibility of apparent bias; accordingly the judge should not adjudicate further aspects of the case and further hearings should be listed before another judge, subject to a preparatory PTR to be conducted by HHJ Melloy.
2 May 2001

Holiday Resorts (Management) Co. Ltd. v. Chan Yuk Yan and Another

Citation

Holiday Resorts (Management) Co. Ltd. v. Chan Yuk Yan and Another
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA7665/1998

Taxation must proceed but any taxed costs are limited by the indemnity principle to the amount the receiving party is liable to pay their solicitor; absent satisfactory written evidence of the solicitor‑client agreement fixing the client's liability, the taxing officer/registrar will not certify (allocatur) an amount that may exceed that liability.
1 Feb 1996

SANYO SECURITIES (ASIA) LTD v. LIN KUANG LUNG RAYMOND

Citation

SANYO SECURITIES (ASIA) LTD v. LIN KUANG LUNG RAYMOND
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV257/1995

The court exercised its exceptional discretion under paragraph 3 of the Listing of Appeals Practice Direction, concluding that the consolidated appeals were sufficiently heavier and more complex to justify treating the matter as an exception to the short appeal rule; on the parties' undertakings to exclude the availability of proposed leading counsel, the court granted the paragraph 3 direction and ordered costs of the application to be costs in the cause.
5 Oct 1990

GREAT PERFECT INVESTMENT LTD. v. LEUNG YAT WAH AND OTHERS

Citation

GREAT PERFECT INVESTMENT LTD. v. LEUNG YAT WAH AND OTHERS
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV98/1990

The Court allowed the appeals, holding that the Rules do not forbid bringing strike‑out applications by Notice of Motion to a judge in court and that Jones J erred in effectively imposing a practice requiring initial summons before a Master; the proper course is to restore the motions for hearing before Jones J or another High Court judge, and the Court will not itself determine the substantive applications on appeal.
5 Oct 1990

GREAT PERFECT INVESTMENT LTD. v. LEUNG YAT WAH AND OTHERS

Citation

GREAT PERFECT INVESTMENT LTD. v. LEUNG YAT WAH AND OTHERS
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV97/1990

The judge erred in dismissing the striking‑out motions solely because they were brought by Notice of Motion rather than summons before a Master; there is no rule precluding such motions and a judge must not impose a new procedural rule under the guise of regulating his court. The correct remedy is to allow the appeals, set aside the dismissal orders and restore the motions for hearing before Jones J or another High Court judge. The Court of Appeal will not entertain the substantive striking‑out applications as that would involve exercising original jurisdiction beyond its statutory remit.