Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Recusal of judge

Legal area

Court

15 Dec 2025

王艷對陳穎懷及另一人

Citation

[2025] HKCA 1088
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP64/2025

The Court refused out‑of‑time permission because the applicant did not offer any explanation for the two‑month delay, the asserted grounds of appeal were misconceived or had no realistic prospect of success (including fundamental misunderstandings of recusal procedure and procedural rules on pleading and expert evidence), and the procedural delay in a judgment being issued beyond three months did not amount to illegality. Consequently the extension of time was not justified and the application was dismissed with costs.
13 Jan 2023

TANG YISU 對 SUNGUARD SECURITY CO LTD

Citation

[2023] HKDC 1667
Court

District Court
Case number

DCEC1028/2021

The applicant failed to establish any factual basis or credible evidence that would give rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias or unfairness by the presiding judge; the allegations were baseless and therefore the recusal application is dismissed and the judge will continue to hear the case.
19 Aug 2022

WSSA v. SYH

Citation

[2022] HKFC 174
Court

Family Court
Case number

FCMC4633/2020

Leave to appeal was refused because the appellant had himself sought and achieved the comprehensive adjournment in his Recusal Summons, the impugned orders were a lawful exercise of case management within the judge's discretion given the Official Solicitor's role and outstanding expert evidence, the grounds lacked a reasonable prospect of success, and the interests of justice did not favor granting leave.
10 Nov 2015

KOMAL PATEL AND OTHERS v. CHRIS AU AND OTHERS

Citation

KOMAL PATEL AND OTHERS v. CHRIS AU AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA183/2014

The application for recusal is dismissed: on the facts a fair-minded and informed observer would not apprehend a real possibility of bias. The asserted connection (judge’s brother and a plaintiff) was insubstantial or corrected, the applicant waived objections by delay and prior participation, interlocutory rulings and adverse comments were justified by the material and procedural context and do not show predetermination, and referral of alleged perjury was warranted by the evidence and admissions. Accordingly no recusal was required and costs are to follow.
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

HCMP241/2012

Leave to appeal was granted limited to the Judge's dismissal of the recusal summons on the basis that grounds 56 and 58 of the draft Notice of Appeal disclose reasonable prospects of success; the remainder of the defendants' leave applications were adjourned to be heard (if appropriate) after that appeal to preserve procedural economy; an interim stay of execution of specific costs orders was granted by consent at hearing.
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

HCMP2693/2012

Leave to appeal was granted solely in relation to the judge's dismissal of the recusal summons on grounds 56 and 58 of the draft Notice of Appeal because those grounds raised an appeal with reasonable prospects of success; the remainder of the interlocutory leave applications were adjourned pending the outcome of that appeal and an interim stay of execution of specified costs orders was granted.
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.
17 Aug 2007

HUANG HSIN YANG v. BANK OF CHINA (HONG KONG) LTD

Citation

HUANG HSIN YANG v. BANK OF CHINA (HONG KONG) LTD
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV186/2007

The court held that recusal proceedings should be heard in public unless one or more Article 10 grounds for exclusion are satisfied; the Deputy Judge was wrong to refuse a public hearing of the recusal application solely because the substantive setting‑aside hearing was private. The refusal of leave to publish the transcript was upheld on the material before the court because there was no basis to show the judge erred in exercising his discretion pending final disposition and absent the transcripts and fuller submissions.
17 Aug 2007

HUANG HSIN YANG v. BANK OF CHINA (HONG KONG) LTD

Citation

HUANG HSIN YANG v. BANK OF CHINA (HONG KONG) LTD
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV219/2007

Recusal proceedings should be heard in public unless one or more of the Article 10 exceptions apply; the judge was wrong to refuse a public hearing of the recusal application on the sole basis that the setting-aside hearing had been private. The judge did not err in refusing leave to publish transcripts on the material before the court as no abuse of discretion was demonstrated.
25 Feb 2004

LIEM HUNG AND OTHERS v. BUILDING AUTHORITY AND OTHERS

Citation

LIEM HUNG AND OTHERS v. BUILDING AUTHORITY AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA789/2003

Recusal application dismissed because allegations were unsupported and would not lead a fair minded and informed observer to infer a real possibility of bias; Statement of Claim struck out as it disclosed no reasonable cause of action against any defendant (malicious prosecution and misfeasance not pleaded or evidenced and fraud/conspiracy insufficiently particularised) and amounted to an abuse of process; action dismissed with costs on an indemnity basis.