Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Rules of court

Legal area

Court

7 May 2025

MAHMOOD KHALID AND ANOTHER v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD

Citation

[2025] HKCA 350
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV272/2024

Leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal was refused because the intended appeal did not raise any question of great general or public importance, no error or viable ground of appeal against the Court of Appeal judgment was identified, the appeal had no reasonable prospect of success, and there was no basis under the 'or otherwise' limb of s22(1)(b); procedural non-compliance was treated as an irregularity and did not nullify the application.
9 Jan 2024

LAM AR FU PETER v. BUILDING AUTHORITY

Citation

[2024] HKCA 23
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV68/2019

Leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal was refused because the applicant's grounds related to previously concluded court orders (which he had exhausted avenues of appeal for), did not raise any question of great general or public importance under s22(b) Cap 484, and the Registrar properly exercised case‑management powers under Order 1B r1(2)(l) and Order 1A to expunge an abusive summons; the application was an abuse of process and not reasonably arguable.
30 May 2019

AKINBOBOLA IDOWU ALEXANDRA v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

Citation

[2019] HKCA 508
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP198/2018

The Court exercised its discretion to refuse extension of time because the applicant's delay (2.5 months) was substantial and, crucially, the intended appeal had no real prospect of success: the applicant failed to identify any error in the Judge's refusal of leave or the Board's credibility and state-protection findings, and the purported fresh evidence was not properly explained or shown to meet the Ladd v Marshall criteria; accordingly granting extension would be futile.
5 Dec 2002

MERCK SHARP & DOHME LTD v. THE REGISTRAR OF PATENTS

Citation

MERCK SHARP & DOHME LTD v. THE REGISTRAR OF PATENTS
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FACV11/2002

Sections 39(1) and the reference to s39(1) in s100(2) of the Patents (General) Rules are ultra vires because rules regulating the giving effect to s46 court orders are rules of court to be made by the Rules Committee under the High Court Ordinance, not by the Registrar, and because the impugned rules are inconsistent with s46(5) which imposes a mandatory duty on the Registrar to record amendments upon receipt of the court order; therefore the Registrar must record the amendment ordered by the court and the impugned rules are of no legal effect.
18 May 2001

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. LIN XIN NIAN

Citation

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. LIN XIN NIAN
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV250/2000

Ord.115 r.29 expressly contemplates affirmations stating grounds of belief based on investigation-derived materials; Ord.41 r.5(1) must be read subject to such specific procedural rules; accordingly the court was entitled to take into account hearsay summaries contained in DSI Cheung's affirmations and to weigh them, and the judge did not err in relying on that material to make a s24D(1)(a) forfeiture finding; appeal dismissed.
19 Mar 1999

NGUYEN TUAN CUONG AND OTHERS v. THE DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION

Citation

NGUYEN TUAN CUONG AND OTHERS v. THE DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1989/1995

Master Kwan did not err: the Statement of Claim was properly filed despite the proceedings being treated as begun by writ; the Amended Writ filed was invalid but that did not invalidate the Statement of Claim; the pleaded facts were sufficient to disclose a potential claim in false imprisonment (detention and alleged absence of lawful authority) and thus the parts of the Statement of Claim challenged should not be struck out, so the appeal was dismissed.
17 Nov 1998

YING CHOW LUNG v. THE KOWLOON MOTOR BUS CO. (1933) LTD. AND ANOTHER

Citation

YING CHOW LUNG v. THE KOWLOON MOTOR BUS CO. (1933) LTD. AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCPI74/1998

The appeal was allowed and the Master’s order set aside; the Court exercised its discretion to substitute a varied unless order giving the 2nd Defendant a final deadline (4pm on 1 December 1998) to file signed witness statements and ruled that failure to do so would bar the 2nd Defendant from adducing the related evidence at trial without leave; costs of the Plaintiff's summons were ordered to be paid by the 2nd Defendant, and costs of the appeal were ordered to be paid by the Plaintiff to the 2nd Defendant.
18 Nov 1988

ATTORNEY GENERAL v. GEOFFERY WATSON

Citation

ATTORNEY GENERAL v. GEOFFERY WATSON
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA3161/1988

Because the defendant proved he did not actually receive the writ before judgment was entered, service by post was ineffective and the default judgment of 27 May 1988 was irregular and must be set aside ex debito justitiae; additionally, if merits had been required, the correct test for setting aside a regularly obtained judgment is that the defendant's defence must have a real prospect of success (not merely a good arguable defence).
1 Jul 1986

CLUETT H.K. LIMITED t/a SIX CONTINENTS v. HERCULES KNITTERS LIMITED

Citation

CLUETT H.K. LIMITED t/a SIX CONTINENTS v. HERCULES KNITTERS LIMITED
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV33/1986

Once an applicant for admission under O.38 r.25 establishes a specified reason (here, maker beyond the seas) and that reason is not challenged, the Rules leave no residual discretion to exclude the hearsay statements; accordingly the trial judge's order admitting the documents was upheld. However, the trial judge erred in ordering the defendant to pay the plaintiff's costs of the adjournment; costs of the adjournment should follow the event and the plaintiff must pay the defendant's costs of the adjournment.
25 Jul 1983

GERALD ARTHUR HARKNETT v. R.B.VENNING ESQ PERMANENT MAGISTRATE

Citation

GERALD ARTHUR HARKNETT v. R.B.VENNING ESQ PERMANENT MAGISTRATE
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1345/1983

The application was dismissed because the applicant failed to comply with O.53 r.9(2) by not lodging a verified copy of the magistrate's order before the hearing and offered no satisfactory explanation; O.2 r.1 cannot be used to cure that mandatory non‑compliance and, even assuming O.2 r.1 could apply, the court would exercise its discretion to refuse leave to file out of time on the facts of this case.