Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Real prospect test

Legal area

Court

2 Nov 2021

FAN YUXI v. LINBIAO TANG AND OTHERS

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 3598
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2032/2020

The 4th defendant failed to demonstrate sufficient grounds or a real prospect of success to justify a stay of execution; the plaintiff's undertaking to hold the judgment sum in the solicitor's client account pending appeal was fair, reasonable and adequate, so the court made the garnishee order absolute, varied the injunction to permit enforcement and dismissed the 4th defendant's summons with costs.
16 Apr 2018

中國大冶有色金屬礦業有限公司對陳翔

Citation

[2018] HKDC 413
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ1121/2017

The application to set aside the registered summary judgment was dismissed because the defendant's proposed defence lacked a real prospect of success; although the bereavement excuse was accepted, procedural failures and unjustified delay (including misuse of legal aid process) and prejudice to the plaintiff outweighed grounds to set aside; costs were ordered against the defendant including a barrister's brief to be assessed by summary assessment and paid immediately.
23 Jun 2017

NG SIK KAI v. LUI WING LOK t/a WING WAH OIL SHIP CO

Citation

NG SIK KAI v. LUI WING LOK t/a WING WAH OIL SHIP CO
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCPI1030/2015

Default judgment was set aside because the defendant demonstrated a real prospect of success by adducing potentially credible evidence that the refuelling was unauthorised and done by crew for their own benefit, raising triable issues as to course of employment; no evidence of calculated or malicious delay and no prejudice shown to plaintiff, so discretion to set aside was exercised in favour of defendant while making costs orders.
2 Oct 2015

MARYO DEVELOPMENT LTD v. TSANG YAU MAY

Citation

MARYO DEVELOPMENT LTD v. TSANG YAU MAY
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV101/2015

Order security for costs of the appeal in the sum of HKD 220,000 because the 3rd defendant claimed impecuniosity, the appeal did not show a strong prospect of success, there were special circumstances (including unrepaid funds), and no countervailing factors justified refusing security; amount includes allowance for costs of the application.
27 Aug 2009

WONG KING FUN v. KEYWAH INTERNATIONAL LTD

Citation

WONG KING FUN v. KEYWAH INTERNATIONAL LTD
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV7/2009

Because service at the registered office was effective and the Defendant failed to demonstrate a real prospect of success or to adduce evidence (having refused adjournment and delayed six months), the default judgment should not be set aside and the appeal is dismissed.
7 Apr 2006

HARNISH M. PATEL v. MAI MAI CHIU

Citation

HARNISH M. PATEL v. MAI MAI CHIU
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ6058/2004

Although the Writ was properly served at the Property and the default judgment was regularly obtained, the defendant advanced a credible defence (that the sum was compensation rather than a loan) and there were unresolved credibility conflicts and factual issues that meant the court could not conclude the defendant had no real prospect of success; accordingly the default judgment and the charging order were set aside and leave to defend granted.
3 May 1996

WINSTON CAMERA AND RADIO CO. LTD. v. VEART DESIGN LTD.

Citation

WINSTON CAMERA AND RADIO CO. LTD. v. VEART DESIGN LTD.
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA11595/1995

The part of the default judgment awarding $1,508,812.00 was irregular because it was not a liquidated demand; the defendant's application to set aside that irregular part was timely and not waived under Order 2 r. 2(1); furthermore the defendant's factual averments could well be established such that its defence to the remaining claim for damages has a real prospect of success; accordingly the Registrar's orders refusing amendment and refusing to set aside the default judgment were set aside and the default judgment of 27 December 1995 was set aside.
7 Apr 1995

PIONEER RICH INVESTMENT LTD. v. SIU TUNG

Citation

PIONEER RICH INVESTMENT LTD. v. SIU TUNG
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA9534/1994

The default judgment was set aside because service was not properly effected under Order 10 r4 rendering the judgment irregular; alternatively, even if service had been proper, the defendant demonstrated a real prospect of success on the merits based on credible documentary evidence and the apparent authority of Mr Deng to bind the plaintiff, therefore leave to defend was justified and costs were ordered in favour of the defendant.
1 Mar 1994

PREMIER FASHION WEARS LTD. v. CHOW CHEUK MAN

Citation

PREMIER FASHION WEARS LTD. v. CHOW CHEUK MAN
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV177/1993

Master Woolley had jurisdiction under Order 16 r.7 to enter the indemnity judgments; a defendant seeking to set aside a regular/default judgment must show a defence with a real prospect of success and of being believed; the respondent failed that test and delay and prejudice further justified refusing relief; garnishors possess locus standi by virtue of an equitable charge. Appeals allowed and indemnity judgments restored.