Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Pre-trial procedure

Legal area

Court

2 Mar 2026

WAI KING FIRE ENGINEERING COMPANY v. THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF PORTION A OF NING YEUNG TERRACE AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2026] HKDC 373
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ4414/2021

On the balance of probabilities the sole proprietor Mr Wong had authorized the commencement of the action in the business name prior to commencement; therefore the proceedings were not a nullity and the striking out summons must be dismissed; where authority is in issue the court may allow cross-examination and require proof of consent by those suing in a business name.
18 Dec 2025

BANCLOGIX SYSTEM CO LTD v. TOP EMINENT HEALTHCARE GROUP LTD (formerly known as CLSA PREMIUM LTD and KVB KUNLUN FINANCIAL GROUP LTD)

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 568
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA452/2020

The summons for specific discovery is dismissed on the ground of inordinate delay by the defendant; there was no satisfactory explanation for the late issuance of the summons and granting the application at this late stage would unfairly prejudice the plaintiffs and disrupt trial preparation, therefore dismissal is warranted without determining relevance.
8 Dec 2021

香港特別行政區訴周柏均及另一人

Citation

[2022] HKDC 1039
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCC475/2020

法院認為辯方所索之PGO/FPM章節及兩份內部調查報告與本案爭點無關或非必需披露；即使部分內容相關，政務司司長已發PII證書並提出充分理據，該等文件受公眾利益豁免保護；且在現有已披露的證人供詞下，被告不會因不披露該等文件而被剝奪公平審訊，故駁回披露申請並確認PII保護。
5 Sept 2019

CREDIT ONE FINANCE LTD v. LEONG WUN HENG

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 2223
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2917/2015

The application was largely refused because it was made very late, would materially prejudice the defendant by disrupting fixed trial dates and necessitating substantial further investigation and pleadings, and the plaintiff's explanations did not establish the exceptional circumstances required to adjourn the trial; however, limited amendments that did not raise substantively new matters and a supplemental statement from an existing witness were permitted as they caused little prejudice.
24 Sept 2015

HKSAR v. TEUTSCHER HENDRIKUS JACOBUS

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 763
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCC38/2015

Given the prosecution's lack of objection to bail subject to conditions, the absence of demonstrated flight risk or danger to the public for these largely elderly and previously law-abiding defendants, and the ongoing disclosure enquiries (including requests to foreign agencies) which justify interim liberty, bail was granted to the named defendants on specified conditions while disclosure is pursued and further mention is fixed.
24 Sept 2015

HKSAR v. MOORMAN WILLIAM LEON

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 763
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCC310/2015

Given the prosecution's lack of objection to bail, the absence of demonstrated flight risk for these largely vulnerable and hitherto law‑abiding defendants, and the outstanding disclosure issues requiring the prosecution to take reasonable steps to identify and obtain potentially relevant foreign material, bail was appropriate subject to specified conditions; trials were vacated/adjourned pending resolution and a further mention hearing was fixed to monitor disclosure progress.
24 Sept 2015

HKSAR v. ULITZKA JORG HEINZ

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 763
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCC487/2014

Given public statements and the material already disclosed, the prosecution is on notice to take all reasonable steps to identify and obtain material from participating foreign agencies relating to syndicate operations and grooming of couriers; in the unusual circumstances and having regard to defendants' backgrounds, the court grants bail subject to conditions (including residence, reporting, surrender of travel documents and non‑departure), and vacates/adjourns scheduled trials pending disclosure, medical assessments and overseas evidence retrieval; specific additional reporting ordered for…
17 Sept 2008

SIT KA YIN PRISCILLA v. EQUAL OPPORTUNITIES COMMISSION AND OTHERS

Citation

SIT KA YIN PRISCILLA v. EQUAL OPPORTUNITIES COMMISSION AND OTHERS
Court

District Court
Case number

DCEO11/1999

Application refused because the proposed interrogatories were prolix and oppressive and constituted a fishing expedition into matters previously ruled irrelevant or privileged; they were unnecessary for a fair disposal or cost saving given the imminent trial and appropriate instead to be addressed by cross-examination, thereby justifying the exercise of the court's discretion to refuse leave.
14 Jul 2008

LAU PUI KEI AND ANOTHER v. LEUNG CHI WAI AND ANOTHER

Citation

LAU PUI KEI AND ANOTHER v. LEUNG CHI WAI AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCPI532/2006

The court exercised its discretion to join Wing Lung because the question of Tung Sing Printing's vicarious liability directly affects the insurer's indemnity exposure and the arbitration would not resolve that issue before trial; the risk of prejudice from delay was mitigated by assurances and the limited scope of the insurer's participation, whereas refusal would risk leaving the insurer unable to protect its position and result in incomplete adjudication. The application to amend the defence was refused.
27 Apr 2006

CHAN YIN NA v. UNION MEDICAL CENTRE LTD.

Citation

CHAN YIN NA v. UNION MEDICAL CENTRE LTD.
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCPI804/2003

The application for a split trial was refused because the applicant failed to satisfy the court that there was a clear demarcation between liability and quantum given overlap in psychiatric evidence, and because the time factor indicated no real saving or convenience since a full trial could realistically be prepared and would likely produce earlier finality.