Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Service and filing deadlines

Legal area

Court

3 Mar 2026

MISDA LENI v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 1053
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL444/2022

The application was dismissed because the applicant voluntarily sought withdrawal, there was nothing outstanding in the proceedings, and in the interests of procedural economy the court treated and amended the Form 86 to challenge the TCAB decision and affirmed dismissal pursuant to established practice and Re Manik Md Mahamudun Nabi [2022] HKCA 471.
3 Dec 2025

EVER FAST LTD AND OBVIO YIP COMPANY LTD v. COMMISSIONER OF RATING AND VALUATION [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 5832
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL96/2006

The court dismissed the applicant's application for leave to apply for judicial review; the court concluded the applicant did not meet the requisite threshold for the grant of leave as addressed in the proceedings and referred to earlier directions dated 11 November 2025.
24 Apr 2025

CHAN SAU HA v. LEUNG ON YU

Citation

[2025] HKDC 676
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ1493/2023

Default judgment was regular; contemporaneous WhatsApp records and inconsistent, inherently implausible affirmations demonstrate the transfer was a loan and the defendant's account lacks a realistic prospect of success; accordingly the Master's order setting aside the default judgment is set aside and the plaintiff's appeal is allowed.
26 Feb 2025

LAM KONG SEK v. APPEAL PANEL (HOUSING) [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 856
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL479/2025

Leave to apply for judicial review was granted because the applicant met the threshold for an arguable case; the Court directed the parties to liaise and propose jointly agreed directions to prepare for a substantive hearing, preserved liberty to apply and reserved all questions of costs.
10 Sept 2024

QBD v. SECRETARY FOR SECURITY AND OTHERS [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 2461
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1530/2024

The court granted leave to apply for judicial review because the applicant demonstrated arguable grounds sufficient to justify a substantive hearing and ordered the parties to liaise and propose directions to enable that hearing, with costs reserved.
17 Apr 2024

THE HONG KONG JOURNALISTS ASSOCIATION v. THE COMMISSIONER FOR TRANSPORT [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 1093
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL559/2024

Leave to apply for judicial review was granted and the court ordered the parties to liaise and propose jointly agreed directions under Practice Direction 26.1 to bring the matter to a substantive hearing, directed the parties to provide availability dates (not before 8 July 2024) within 14 days, granted liberty to apply and reserved all questions of costs; the applicant must comply with Order 53 obligations regarding service, issuing the originating summons and disclosure of affidavits.
20 Mar 2024

MIDLAND REALTY INTERNATIONAL LTD AND OTHERS v. COMPETIOTION COMMISSION [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 869
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL490/2024

The court granted leave and directed the parties to liaise and agree directions for the court to consider for a substantive hearing; the court imposed procedural deadlines and specified that, where leave is granted, the applicants must serve the order and issue the originating summons within 14 days and supply copies of affidavits to other parties.
24 Feb 2012

EFFISCIENT LTD v. EDWARD EUGENE LEHMAN

Citation

EFFISCIENT LTD v. EDWARD EUGENE LEHMAN
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP2524/2011

The court exercised its discretion to grant the extension of time because the failure to enter the originating summons was an honest oversight by the applicant's solicitors, there was no demonstrable delay or prejudice to the respondent, and the December 13 settlement letter, while heavy-handed, did not constitute sufficient evidence of a deliberate tactical decision to withhold the notice; accordingly directions were appropriate and costs ordered against the applicant for the summons and delay.