Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Recusal/bias

Legal area

Court

20 Sept 2021

YCKS v. MPKC

Citation

[2021] HKCA 1350
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP97/2021

Leave to appeal was granted for specified grounds where delay and identified errors (notably alleged double‑counting of children’s maintenance and unclear aspects of the wife’s maintenance) gave reasonable prospects of success and weakened the trial judge’s advantage; leave was refused for procedural grounds where no timely interlocutory applications were made or no prejudice shown; recusal and bare allegations of bias were rejected; one ground (ESF assistance) was reserved pending provision of transcript.
5 Dec 2019

TSUI YUN BUN BARRY v. LAW WAN TUNG (formerly known as LAW SIU YI BIBY)

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 2955
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2596/2017

An unsecured judgment creditor whose legal rights are directly affected by a charging order has standing to apply to discharge it; the judge's procedural direction to include the HC Judgment in hearing bundles did not amount to a real possibility of bias; the ex parte charging order was not set aside because the court found no material non-disclosure sufficient to vitiate the order and the application to discharge failed.
29 Sept 2016

ELIJAH SAATORI v. RAFFLES MEDICAL GROUP (HONG KONG) LTD

Citation

ELIJAH SAATORI v. RAFFLES MEDICAL GROUP (HONG KONG) LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCPI1114/2006

The court refused to set aside or stay the orders of 1, 2, 5 and 7 September 2016 because the adjournment conditions imposed under Order 35 r3 were a lawful exercise of judicial discretion to prevent prejudice to the defendant; the judge declined to recuse; the plaintiff was given a final indulgence extending time to comply with the payment/security condition to 7 November 2016; the summons was dismissed with costs to the defendant.
31 Jul 2014

BRIGHT SUCCESS PROPERTIES LTD v. DIAS, SANDRA MARY ELIZABETH

Citation

BRIGHT SUCCESS PROPERTIES LTD v. DIAS, SANDRA MARY ELIZABETH
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ4464/2013

The defendant failed to show a reasonable prospect of success or any other reason in the interests of justice under section 63A(2) DCO; the conditional stay requiring payment of security was lawful given unpaid occupation rent/mesne profit and the defendant's failure to pay justified dismissal of extension and interlocutory applications; alleged failure to take facts into account and bias did not establish ground for recusal.
30 Mar 2005

HEE LEE INVESTMENT CO LTD v. JOY EXPRESS LTD

Citation

HEE LEE INVESTMENT CO LTD v. JOY EXPRESS LTD
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV222/2004

The Court refused leave to appeal because the questions proposed did not meet the s.22(1)(b) threshold of great general or public importance and there were no special circumstances to justify bypassing the court below as required by Order 59 Rule 14(4); further, the defendant produced no admissible evidence to show public danger and failed to substantiate allegations of lack of confidence in the judge.

Hong Kong Case Law

YCKS v. MPKC

TSUI YUN BUN BARRY v. LAW WAN TUNG (formerly known as LAW SIU YI BIBY)

ELIJAH SAATORI v. RAFFLES MEDICAL GROUP (HONG KONG) LTD

BRIGHT SUCCESS PROPERTIES LTD v. DIAS, SANDRA MARY ELIZABETH

HEE LEE INVESTMENT CO LTD v. JOY EXPRESS LTD