Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Service/notice

Legal area

Court

21 Nov 2024

RE JAAN SHEIKH BABU

Citation

[2024] HKCA 1061
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP130/2023

Extension of time was refused because the decision was sent to the applicant's last known address and not returned (indicating notice), the applicant offered no reasonable explanation for delay or how he learned of the decision, and the intended appeal was hopeless because no arguable error of law, procedural unfairness, or Wednesbury unreasonableness was identified in the Board's or Judge's decisions.
23 Oct 2024

RE VALDEZ JEYSON BALDO

Citation

[2024] HKCA 957
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP77/2023

The appeal for extension of time is refused because the applicant had notice of the decision and offered no reasonable explanation for delay, failed to particularise any arguable legal error or procedural unfairness in the Judge's refusal of leave, and the Board had lawfully considered the merits under s37ZT(3) Cap 115; there was no prospect of success and the summons is dismissed.
5 Jul 2022

FLEXI CREDITS LTD v. WONG CHI KIT CLEMENT

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 2052
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA738/2022

The Mareva injunction was refused because the applicant materially failed in its duty of full and frank disclosure by not confronting or rebutting the statutory presumption under MLO s25(3) that the principal consolidated loan (effective rate 48.00006%) is extortionate; absent evidence of a good arguable case on that loan, injunctive relief could not be justified and the application therefore failed.
14 Apr 2022

RE JORAWAR SINGH

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 925
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL573/2017

Refused extension of time because the delay was grossly inordinate (about three years and eight and a half months), the applicant provided no credible explanation for the delay (court found his account false and contradicted by postal and tenancy evidence), the proposed appeal had no arguable prospect of success, and granting extension would prejudice the administration and risk abuse of the non‑refoulement process.
19 Nov 2019

GRACEFUL WIN INTERNATIONAL LTD v. GOLDSTAR SUCCESS LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 2831
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA42/2018

Paragraphs 24-38 of the Statement of Claim and prayers (1)-(9) are struck out because the pleaded central allegation (SoC §20) that no written notice was given is contradicted by the undisputed receipt of the KY Woo's Letter which constituted written notice under Clause 4 of the 2010 Agreement or, at minimum, rendered the pleaded case defective and bound to fail; furthermore the contract and unjust enrichment claims are time-barred in any event.
22 Oct 2010

LUCK CONTINENT LTD V. LEONORA YUNG AND OTHERS

Citation

LUCK CONTINENT LTD V. LEONORA YUNG AND OTHERS
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV42/2010

The ex parte injunction was set aside because the plaintiff obtained it on inadequate and last‑minute notice without real urgency; the matter could have been returnable on the next summons date and properly served, so the ex parte process was misused.
2 Nov 2006

REES TAYLOR FINANCE LTD v. CHEUNG YU TIN ALVIN

Citation

REES TAYLOR FINANCE LTD v. CHEUNG YU TIN ALVIN
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ2081/2006

The court accepted defence counsel's representation that she only received notice on 31 October and, weighing the prejudice to the defendant from proceeding without prepared counsel against inconvenience to the plaintiff and court, exercised its discretion to adjourn the hearing and permit a supplemental affirmation with fixed timelines; costs of the aborted hearing were thrown away to be taxed.
25 Jul 2005

SLIK HONG KONG CO LTD v. GERALD MERLYN RHOSLYN EVANS AND OTHERS

Citation

SLIK HONG KONG CO LTD v. GERALD MERLYN RHOSLYN EVANS AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1424/2005

The initial ex parte application was dismissed for lack of exceptional urgency and inadequate notice; on renewed proceedings with adequate notice and evidence of serious question to be tried and imminent risk of irreparable harm from misuse of confidential information, the court granted interim injunctive relief subject to safeguards and liberty to apply to set aside prior to the return date.
10 Jul 2001

Re Hon Seng Engineering Ltd.

Citation

Re Hon Seng Engineering Ltd.
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCW59/2000

Re-advertisement is not required upon substitution of a petitioner where the original petition was properly advertised and creditors/contributories were informed of the class remedy; substitution does not alter that notice function. Consequently the hearing of the petition could proceed (subject to adjournment for evidence). On costs, the original petitioner (Jason) must pay the Company's costs except that Jason’s costs of the original petition and of the advertisement are to be treated as costs in the petition.
27 Oct 1994

Re HING WAH BLANKET COMPANY LIMITED AND ANOTHER

Citation

Re HING WAH BLANKET COMPANY LIMITED AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP2745/1994

Orders under s.221 should, in normal circumstances, be made on notice to the person to be examined; making such orders ex parte and withholding the liquidator's report and exhibits from the proposed examinee is not justified absent specific, demonstrated reasons. If confidentiality is necessary it must be justified to the judge and access may be conditioned on undertakings, but secrecy as a default practice is unacceptable.