Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Procedural economy

Legal area

Court

2 Mar 2022

JEKCO ELEVATORS LTD v. MILLION HOTEL MANAGEMENT LTD

Citation

[2022] HKDC 209
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ1440/2018

Leave to appeal dismissed because the defendant's three grounds lacked a reasonable prospect of success: the 26 June 2017 descent incident did not establish repudiatory breach after repair and was considered in the judgment; the court had addressed the counterclaim and the defendant failed to plead or prove loss or seek nominal damages at trial; and the quantum argument about variable costs was a new, fact‑sensitive point not raised at trial and unfair to permit on appeal. Granting leave was also disproportionate given the modest sum. A costs order nisi was made for the defendant to pay the p…
28 Feb 2022

丘對張

Citation

[2022] HKFC 43
Court

Family Court
Case number

FCMC316/2018

Applicant failed to show a reasonable prospect of success or special reasons to depart from the usual approach that MPS orders are interim and assessed broadly; disputed issues of income, assets and alleged nondisclosure properly await ancillary relief; therefore leave to appeal and a stay were refused and costs awarded to respondent.
29 Sept 2021

MAEDA KENSETSU KOGYO KABUSHIKI KAISHA also known as MAEDA CORPORATION AND ANOTHER v. BAUER HONG KONG LTD

Citation

[2021] HKCA 1420
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP154/2018

The Court dismissed the defendant's application for leave to appeal as procedurally pointless because the substantive appeal had already been heard and, alternatively, the judge was entitled to find the questions were of general importance and that the arbitrator's decision was open to serious doubt; no special reason existed to grant further leave, and plaintiffs were awarded indemnity costs of HK$124,100.
11 Nov 2020

MAN SING GENERAL CONTRACTORS LTD v. THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF ON TAI MANSION, WINSLOW STREET

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 2864
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCT67/2019

Because the Arbitrator failed to give reasons on interest and costs the Award was properly remitted; the remission was not attributable to the Respondent and the Applicant's insistence on varying the costs order was unreasonable; both parties failed to act reasonably and promptly to save costs, therefore the court ordered that each party bear its own costs of the Originating Summons.
13 Jul 2018

MING HSIEH v. XU ZHE AND OTHERS

Citation

[2018] HKCA 390
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV235/2017

Application for stay dismissed: appellant's appeal was only arguable not 'almost bound to succeed'; appellant failed to show a real risk that payment of the HK$3,508,600 judgment would render the appeal nugatory given defendants' disclosed Hong Kong assets, the undertaking over the Kennedy Road property and taxed costs in the defendants' favour; applicant did not discharge burden to show good reasons for stay; costs awarded to defendants.
13 Oct 2015

BEYONICS TECHNOLOGY LTD AND ANOTHER v. GOH CHAN PENG AND OTHERS

Citation

BEYONICS TECHNOLOGY LTD AND ANOTHER v. GOH CHAN PENG AND OTHERS
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV244/2014

The Court has jurisdiction under Order 62 rule 9(4)(b) to order summary assessment in lieu of taxation; the plaintiffs did not demonstrate substantial grounds under rule 9C(1)(a) to preclude summary assessment; given the short duration, limited number of hearings and non‑voluminous papers, summary assessment is appropriate to promote procedural economy, and the costs order nisi is varied accordingly.
31 Jul 2014

RE PM

Citation

RE PM
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL106/2013

The leave application was refused and the adjournment denied because the applicant must await and exhaust the TCAB appeal/decision and the court will not permit amendment of the original Form 86 to include a decision that did not exist at filing since that would add a new cause of action and there were no exceptional circumstances to justify judicial review at this stage.
6 Mar 2014

NG KWOK PIU PHILIP AND OTHERS v. TO PUI KUI AND OTHERS

Citation

NG KWOK PIU PHILIP AND OTHERS v. TO PUI KUI AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA51/2007

No sufficient cause was shown to vary earlier orders limiting expert handwriting evidence; the consolidated actions were prepared and tried on that basis, live witnesses can be cross-examined, the proposed fresh expert evidence was unnecessary for determination of the remaining actions and allowing it would be unfair, duplicative and contrary to procedural economy; accordingly the summons for leave to adduce expert evidence was dismissed.
28 Feb 2013

FALCON PRIVATE BANK LTD v. BORRY BERNARD EDOUARD CHARLES LTD ANOTHER

Citation

FALCON PRIVATE BANK LTD v. BORRY BERNARD EDOUARD CHARLES LTD ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP407/2012

Leave to appeal was granted solely on grounds 56 and 58 challenging To J's dismissal of the recusal summons because those grounds disclose reasonable prospects of success; the other leave applications were adjourned to await the outcome of that appeal; an interim stay of execution of specified costs orders was granted.
6 Jul 2010

O\'BRIEN TSE SHUK CHUN SANDRA v. LO HOI YIN AND OTHERS

Citation

O\'BRIEN TSE SHUK CHUN SANDRA v. LO HOI YIN AND OTHERS
Court

District Court
Case number

DCPI2315/2008

Although a plaintiff may pursue judgment against multiple jointly and severally liable defendants, continuation to trial against the 2nd defendant after the 1st defendant had consented to judgment and offered discontinuance was unnecessary and unreasonable; therefore plaintiff must bear the 2nd defendant's costs after the date of the 1st defendant's consent, while the 1st defendant and MIB remain liable for costs up to dates agreed; plaintiff is entitled to District Court scale costs.