Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Regularity of judgment

Legal area

Court

30 Dec 2025

YAU NGAI v. ITALINA (HOLDINGS) LTD

Citation

[2025] HKLdT 77
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDPE936/2024

Where a defendant’s meritorious defence was disclosed on 14.2.2025 the tribunal applied the principle that costs occasioned by further resistance after disclosure should follow the event and varied the costs nisi accordingly: costs of the setting aside application incurred up to 14.2.2025 to the applicant; costs incurred on or after 15.2.2025 to the respondent; costs in the cause and issue-based deprivation of the respondent’s costs were rejected absent a significant increase in costs or special circumstances; the respondent’s assessed costs were reduced by 15% on a broad-brush set-off to ref…
27 Oct 2023

YASAKART CORPORATION v. HAOGONG TECHNOLOGY CO LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2023] HKDC 1514
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ5381/2021

The additional evidence application failed because no special grounds under Order 58 r 1(5) were shown; the final judgment was regular as the plaintiff had expressly abandoned specified reliefs when applying for default judgment; the 2nd defendant did not demonstrate a real prospect of success because it failed to establish the USDT purchase and transfer, failed to show a causal link between receipt and change of position and did not satisfy bona fide purchaser elements; accordingly the setting aside application and appeal were dismissed and the garnishee order made absolute with costs ordere…
23 Dec 2015

HOA SHUN HAU TONG v. 何耀光

Citation

HOA SHUN HAU TONG v. 何耀光
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ2466/2014

On the evidence there was no letter box at the address; service by insertion through a letter box was therefore not effected; the default judgment entered on 21 October 2014 was irregular and must be set aside. The court exercised its discretion to set aside without imposing conditions and granted the defendant leave to file and serve a defence within 21 days; costs allocated against the plaintiff as ordered.
7 Apr 2005

HARVEST RISE LTD v. LAW KWOK YAN

Citation

HARVEST RISE LTD v. LAW KWOK YAN
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA771/2004

The appeal was dismissed because the Judge concluded the Master did not err in law nor exercise her discretion unreasonably: the Master correctly found the judgment was regularly entered, the defendant was at fault for failing to acknowledge service after 13 August, and the fraud allegations lacked particulars, thus validating the Master’s costs orders.
21 Sept 1999

SPC CREDIT LTD. v. WONG KAM BIU

Citation

SPC CREDIT LTD. v. WONG KAM BIU
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV158/1999

The Court held the judge acted improperly in making costs orders beyond the scope of the interlocutory application; accordingly the orders of 13 November 1998 and 3 February 1999 were to be amended to delete all references to costs except that the costs of the two applications be costs in the cause, because the question of regularity of service remained undecided and matters alleged after 2 May 1995 were irrelevant to the interlocutory determination of setting aside the default judgment.

Hong Kong Case Law

YAU NGAI v. ITALINA (HOLDINGS) LTD

YASAKART CORPORATION v. HAOGONG TECHNOLOGY CO LTD AND ANOTHER

HOA SHUN HAU TONG v. 何耀光

HARVEST RISE LTD v. LAW KWOK YAN

SPC CREDIT LTD. v. WONG KAM BIU