Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Relief from sanctions

Legal area

Court

5 Mar 2026

廖芷彤對太興環球發展有限公司

Citation

[2026] HKCA 360
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP113/2024

The court refused relief from sanction because the applicant failed to provide a reasonable explanation for non‑compliance with the unless order and for the nine‑day delay, failed to take responsibility for service address, had constructive knowledge of the court directions via file check, and because the proposed appeal had no real prospect of success (PRC laws inapplicable, employer negligence not established on foreseeability, and a late 'transfer' argument was properly excluded); accordingly the application was dismissed and costs awarded.
4 Mar 2026

陳嘉琪對嘉頓有限公司

Citation

[2026] HKDC 343
Court

District Court
Case number

DCEC864/2019

Relief from the penalty clause is refused because the applicant failed to provide any adequate explanation for non‑compliance with the unless order, her conduct indicates deliberate or culpable refusal to attend the medical examination and to disclose requested medical records, the respondent suffered real prejudice and wasted costs and time, and case management and fairness to the respondent require enforcement of the unless order and the costs order.
26 Nov 2025

SERES PROPERTIES B.V. v. LEE HOCK PUN AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 5750
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1287/2022

The Default Judgment was irregular because service by insertion in the letter box under O.10 r.1(2) required the defendant to be within the jurisdiction when the writ was served and the evidence established D1 was not; the consent order did not preclude D1 from pursuing a direct challenge to the validity of the Default Judgment and there was no abuse of process or prejudice warranting retention of the irregular judgment, therefore the Default Judgment must be set aside ex debito justitiae and related enforcement measures founded on it (charging order, attempted discharge) fall away.
15 Oct 2025

CHOW LILY v. CHOW WAI WAI VIOLET AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 4898
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAP22/2019

The Leave Summons was dismissed because the plaintiff's complaints merely challenged the weight the trial judge gave to various factors rather than identifying any error of law or principle or a plainly wrong exercise of discretion; the intended appeal lacked a reasonable prospect of success given the high threshold for upsetting case management decisions and the real risk of trial over-run and unexplained delay.
23 Sept 2025

BEIJING SONGXIANGHU ARCHITECTURAL DECORATION ENGINEERING CO LTD v. KITTY KAM also known as WANG YUZHI

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 4497
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1289/2022

The Court held that the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Charging Order Nisi should be made absolute because (a) the defendant's cheques were properly rejected as insufficient to discharge the ascertained sums including costs which were to be assessed, (b) there was no stay of enforcement pending appeals or other applications so no good reason existed to withhold making the orders absolute, and (c) consideration of proportionality and the defendant's conduct favoured granting the charging orders as security rather than delaying enforcement.
2 Sept 2025

HANNAFORD FINANCE LTD v. FONG KA TAK FRANCIS

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 3872
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2230/2018

Service by post to the Tai Hang Road address was valid as a last known address and the Default Judgment was regular; the defendant failed to establish a defence with a real prospect of success or credible evidence of duress or that the loan was from a third party; the defendant grossly delayed and failed to provide an adequate explanation for delay in seeking relief from sanctions so relief is refused. Accordingly the appeal fails and both the Setting Aside and Relief Summonses are dismissed.
29 Aug 2025

日進機械工程有限公司對雍境建築有限公司

Citation

[2025] HKDC 1359
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ4456/2022

Defendant failed to apply for relief from the sanction within the 14‑day period required by the rules and did not provide admissible fresh evidence satisfying Ladd v Marshall; its submissions merely repeated previously rejected arguments and did not show a reasonable prospect of success under s63A of the District Court Ordinance; therefore leave to appeal was refused and costs awarded to plaintiff.
16 Jun 2025

EVROCHOICE INTERNATIONAL LTD v. SUPERSTAR INTERNATIONAL (GROUP) LTD

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 2448
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA520/2023

The Court exercised its discretion to grant relief from sanction and a retrospective extension of time because the Xiang witness statement was in fact received by the Plaintiff (by fax) such that any prejudice was minimal, the consequences of striking out the statement would be disproportionate given the Defendant's substantive counterclaim and the apparent responsibility of solicitors for the procedural lapse; accordingly the Plaintiff's applications to expunge the Xiang WS and to expunge Attachment 1 were dismissed and the Xiang WS was deemed validly served.
11 Jun 2025

張惠蘭對中国建築工程(香港)有限公司

Citation

[2025] HKCA 533
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP78/2024

Court found applicant did not serve a complete amended bundle by the deadline; the postal evidence was inconsistent and implausible; applicant failed to give any good and reasonable explanation for both non‑compliance with the 9 September 2024 order and for the delay in applying for relief; therefore relief from sanction was refused and the 15 October 2024 summons dismissed, with costs ordered against the applicant and a paper assessment procedure directed.
24 Mar 2025

日進機械工程有限公司對雍境建築有限公司

Citation

[2025] HKDC 412
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ4456/2022

The defendant failed to make a timely application for relief from sanctions within the 14‑day period and provided no sworn evidence to justify relief; the alleged letter was not received and bank statements did not support the claimed inability to pay; the defendant’s payment of HK$15,000 to court demonstrated available assets; therefore the automatic sanction (striking out the amended defence and counterclaim and entering judgment for the plaintiff) was properly applied and the defendant’s appeal is dismissed.