Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Rules of court compliance

Legal area

Court

12 Apr 2017

CHU ON FONG WINTER v. THE APPEAL PANEL (HOUSING) AND ANOTHER

Citation

CHU ON FONG WINTER v. THE APPEAL PANEL (HOUSING) AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL79/2017

Extension of time refused because the applicant failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the delay (medical events mostly outside the appeal period, limited disruption within the period, lack of supporting evidence) and failed to demonstrate any merits or reasonably arguable grounds for the intended appeal; lack of legal aid is not a sufficient excuse.
10 Aug 2007

LEUNG KWOK HUNG v. THE PRESIDENT OF THE LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL OF THE HKSAR AND ANOTHER

Citation

LEUNG KWOK HUNG v. THE PRESIDENT OF THE LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL OF THE HKSAR AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1227/2007

Extension of time refused because the 113‑day delay was not sufficiently excused by reliance on former solicitors, the applicant is experienced in litigation, and the proposed appeal lacked a reasonable prospect of success given Hartmann J's correct interpretation that Rule 57(6) is not inconsistent with the Basic Law; overall justice did not require indulgence.
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.
23 Apr 2002

GRANDYIELD KNITTERS LTD v. GRANDYIELD KNITTERS LTD

Citation

GRANDYIELD KNITTERS LTD v. GRANDYIELD KNITTERS LTD
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV125/2002

Post-judgment interest is mandatory under s.50 and not subject to the pleading requirement; pre-judgment interest may be awarded despite absence of a specific statutory citation in the pleading where the claim in the prayer together with the pleaded facts gave the defendant fair notice and there was no prejudice; failure to comply with Ord.18 r.8(4) is procedural, not jurisdictional, and the judge had jurisdiction to award the pre-judgment interest on the facts of this case.
3 Jan 1985

THE KA WAH BANK LTD v.PRODUCT SCOUTING INTERNATIONAL LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

THE KA WAH BANK LTD v.PRODUCT SCOUTING INTERNATIONAL LTD AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV171/1984

The Court held that the Rules of the Supreme Court preclude a limited company from taking steps other than acknowledgement without a solicitor and that the Interpretation Ordinance does not override those rules; the failure to take out concurrent summons for consolidation was a valid procedural bar and the Judge did not err in exercising his discretion to refuse consolidation; accordingly the appeal was dismissed.

Hong Kong Case Law

CHU ON FONG WINTER v. THE APPEAL PANEL (HOUSING) AND ANOTHER

LEUNG KWOK HUNG v. THE PRESIDENT OF THE LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL OF THE HKSAR AND ANOTHER

HEE LEE INVESTMENT CO LTD v. JOY EXPRESS LTD

GRANDYIELD KNITTERS LTD v. GRANDYIELD KNITTERS LTD

THE KA WAH BANK LTD v.PRODUCT SCOUTING INTERNATIONAL LTD AND ANOTHER