Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Questions of law

Legal area

Court

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.
13 Nov 2020

CHAN YUET SHEUNG v. WONG, HUI & CO, SOLICITORS

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 2894
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCSA24/2020

Application for leave to appeal was declined because the challenged matters were factual findings or discretionary assessments rather than questions of law; the Tribunal did not misapply s.24(1) or mandate tax returns as the only proof, and no evidence of actual loss of income was established to justify the claimed costs.
14 Dec 2018

THE CAPITAL MARKETS CO LTD v. CHONG LAI SHAN

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 2669
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCSA24/2018

The defendant did not raise any arguable question of law or jurisdiction under s28; the Deputy Adjudicator's findings that vacant possession was delivered on 31 October 2016 and his assessment of damages were pure findings of fact open on the evidence and therefore not a basis for leave; accordingly leave to appeal was refused.
27 Feb 2015

PACIFIC ELECTRIC WIRE & CABLE CO LTD v. TEXAN MANAGEMENT LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

PACIFIC ELECTRIC WIRE & CABLE CO LTD v. TEXAN MANAGEMENT LTD AND OTHERS
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FAMV7/2014

Although the leave applications involved extensive evidence and factual complexity, the court held that two counsel were sufficient to analyse the evidence and make the necessary arguments; valuing the shares was neither necessary nor possible at the leave stage, and the discretionary applications were unpromising due to concurrent factual findings, therefore only a certificate for two counsel was justified.
27 Feb 2015

PACIFIC ELECTRIC WIRE & CABLE CO LTD v. TEXAN MANAGEMENT LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

PACIFIC ELECTRIC WIRE & CABLE CO LTD v. TEXAN MANAGEMENT LTD AND OTHERS
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FAMV5/2014

Although the leave application involved extensive evidence, the essential issues could be competently presented by two counsel; therefore a certificate for two counsel only is appropriate and no order as to costs is made in respect of this ruling.
27 Feb 2015

PACIFIC ELECTRIC WIRE & CABLE CO LTD v. HARMUTTY LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

PACIFIC ELECTRIC WIRE & CABLE CO LTD v. HARMUTTY LTD AND OTHERS
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FAMV8/2014

Although the leave applications involved extensive evidence and some exceptional features, it was within the competence of two counsel to analyse the evidence and make the arguments; therefore a certificate for two counsel only was appropriate and no additional costs order is made in respect of this ruling.
27 Feb 2015

PACIFIC ELECTRIC WIRE & CABLE CO LTD v. TEXAN MANAGEMENT LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

PACIFIC ELECTRIC WIRE & CABLE CO LTD v. TEXAN MANAGEMENT LTD AND OTHERS
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FAMV6/2014

Although the leave application was somewhat exceptional and involved extensive evidence, it was within the competence of two counsel to analyse the evidence and make the necessary submissions; therefore a certificate for two counsel only was appropriate and the losing parties should not be required to pay for four counsel; no order as to costs was made in respect of this ruling.
8 Jul 2010

HAU TUNG YING AND ANOTHER v. HKSAR

Citation

HAU TUNG YING AND ANOTHER v. HKSAR
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FAMC36/2010

Leave to appeal is granted to both applicants under both limbs of s.32(2) because the convictions raise arguable questions of law and issues of accepted norms worthy of the Court of Final Appeal's attention.
10 Jun 2010

WONG YU CHO ROLLY v. INLAND REVENUE BOARD OF REVIEW

Citation

WONG YU CHO ROLLY v. INLAND REVENUE BOARD OF REVIEW
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL108/2009

The Board was entitled to refuse to state a case because the proposed grounds of appeal, as formulated, did not raise questions of law proper for the High Court to determine; accordingly the applicant's leave application was not reasonably arguable and must be refused.
4 Sept 1996

CHAN CHEUK TONG v. DIRECTOR OF LANDS

Citation

CHAN CHEUK TONG v. DIRECTOR OF LANDS
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV223/1995

The notice of appeal failed to disclose any question of law as required by s.11(2) Lands Tribunal Ordinance and r.2 O60A RSC; therefore no competent appeal lay to the Court of Appeal and the Court properly exercised its inherent jurisdiction to strike out the notice of appeal and dismiss the appeal.