Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Service and jurisdiction

Legal area

Court

17 Dec 2021

CHINA HEALTH GROUP LTD v. LI ZHONG YUAN AND OTHERS

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 3806
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2569/2017

Consolidation was refused because the three actions involve distinct incidents, limited factual overlap and different reliefs such that consolidation would not save time or prevent conflicting judgments; the Note Action is trial‑ready while the Derivative Action is at a preliminary stage with unserved indispensable parties, and consolidation would cause undue delay and prejudice; the application was a tactical abuse of process and therefore dismissed with indemnity costs to respondents.
13 Sept 2021

CHINA SHANSHUI CEMENT GROUP LTD AND OTHERS v. TIANRUI (INTERNATIONAL) HOLDING CO LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 2745
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA548/2019

Indemnity costs were warranted because the 6/11/2020 Summons was issued and served late without adequate justification and was withdrawn after causing wasted costs and diversion of resources, and §§13 of the 14/8/2019 Summons were abandoned late and equivocally causing unnecessary expense; special and unusual features justified indemnity treatment for those parts, with an apportionment of 35% indemnity for §§13 and summary assessment payable forthwith with certificate for two counsel.
12 Aug 2021

呂詩詩對陸俊鵬及另四人

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 2309
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCPI99/2020

The judge held the asserted causes of action against the first defendant plainly accrued in 2003–2004 and were therefore time‑barred; s26 did not apply because the plaintiff could and should have discovered the matters earlier and did not demonstrate reasonable inability to discover until 2018; identical claims had been dismissed in the tribunal and proceeding in High Court constituted abuse of process/res judicata; accordingly the statement of claim against the first defendant is struck out, the proceedings against him discontinued, and the appeal dismissed with costs payable to the first de…
8 Mar 2016

COMMISSIONER OF POLICE v. APPLE DAILY LTD

Citation

COMMISSIONER OF POLICE v. APPLE DAILY LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP115/2016

The applications for production orders were dismissed because the Applicant failed to prove that the requested unedited footage (as redefined to footage of Tsang up to his escort away from Tamar Park) was of substantial value to investigation or relevant evidence in the proceedings (s84(3)(a)(iii)); other access conditions were not met in material respects (including proper specification of premises for i-CABLE); the identity/personal particulars of makers do not qualify as 'journalistic material' under s82 and so cannot be ordered under s84; and on a public interest balancing exercise, produ…
23 Mar 2015

WOODCRAFT CORPORATION AND OTHERS v. YANG HSIU LI AND ANOTHER

Citation

WOODCRAFT CORPORATION AND OTHERS v. YANG HSIU LI AND ANOTHER<br>
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA887/2005

The plaintiffs proved on balance that the sums in the defendants' Citibank Hong Kong accounts were identifiable proceeds of the 1st defendant's theft; equity imposes a constructive trust on those funds and the plaintiffs are entitled to trace and recover them; Taiwan monetary judgments are final and do not bar the present proprietary claim under Cap 46 s5; therefore declaration, payment order and preservation of the funds were made for the plaintiffs.
22 Oct 2013

CHINA NATIONAL GOLD GROUP CORPORATION v. HK CHINA GOLD CO LTD

Citation

CHINA NATIONAL GOLD GROUP CORPORATION v. HK CHINA GOLD CO LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA88/2013

Defendant failed to establish a real prospect of success: the marks were held similar and likely to cause confusion in relation to identical goods; the defendant's website and representations supported a finding of use in Hong Kong or an intention to trade here; the plaintiff demonstrated sufficient reputation and cross-border recognition to sustain passing-off. Accordingly the application to set aside the default judgment was dismissed.
31 Aug 1979

BANK OF INDIA v. HEERA LALCHAND SHAHANI AND OTHERS

Citation

BANK OF INDIA v. HEERA LALCHAND SHAHANI AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA3706/1979

The application for Mareva injunctions was dismissed because the plaintiff failed to establish that the assets (shares in private companies) were easily removable or convertible and failed to raise even a suspicion that defendants would remove assets; the plaintiff also failed to particularise securities and the nexus to the assets sought to be frozen, and for defendants resident in Hong Kong the existing Order 44A remedy made freezing relief inappropriate.
19 Dec 1972

CHOO KIM SAN v. THE BANK OF TOKYO LTD

Citation

CHOO KIM SAN v. THE BANK OF TOKYO LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2568/1972

On the uncontradicted affidavit evidence and the documents, the drafts and accompanying documents did not comply with the letter of credit (wrong drawer/beneficiary issue, invoice and bill of lading discrepancies, missing required documents) and presentment was defective/out of time; consequently the plaintiff has no real prospect of success and the action is an abuse of process — the statement of claim is struck out and the action stayed; additionally Hong Kong is not the appropriate forum given the locus of the credit and related parties, so a stay is justified.