Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Service of notice

Legal area

Court

29 Apr 2026

ABDULLAH MIRZA MUHAMMAD v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2361
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL142/2022

The leave application was dismissed because the applicant failed to provide any reasonably arguable grounds and the Board's decision contained adequate reasons and did not exhibit error of law, procedural unfairness or Wednesbury irrationality; Form 86 was amended to name the Director of Immigration as the putative interested party.
17 Sept 2025

有關管靜茹的事宜

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 4179
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCB6517/2024

The petition was dismissed because the debtor demonstrated a reasonable and arguable defence: there is a genuine dispute over the correct definition and calculation period for the renewal rate (notably whether the relevant months include a period before the contract's effective date of 1 October 2021), and whether certain policies should be included; combined with contested service of the termination letter, these facts constitute a substantial and bona fide defence to the petition, warranting dismissal and a provisional costs order in favour of the debtor.
15 Apr 2025

香港特別行政區訴何麗雯

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 2980
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA503/2024

The prosecution proved service of the 2014 statutory notice and the appellant failed, without any credible or evidenced reasonable excuse, to comply within the required time; on re‑hearing the High Court found the evidence sufficient beyond reasonable doubt and upheld the conviction.
16 Jan 2025

TRILLION STAR (ASIA) LTD v. GAIN FORTUNE CORPORATION LTD

Citation

[2025] HKDC 65
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ4722/2023

The undertaking signed by the director with ostensible authority was a valid, enforceable contract supported by consideration; section 127 did not preclude the undertaking binding the company; the defendant failed to produce evidence of any arguable interpretation that the undertaking had lapsed on formation of the provisional agreement or that it did not receive notice; accordingly there was no real prospect of success on any defence and summary judgment for the plaintiff was warranted.
22 Aug 2024

香港特別行政區訴黃啟仁

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 3092
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA271/2023

Appellant admitted receipt of the fixed penalty notice and therefore could not satisfy the statutory prerequisite in s3B(1) that he did not receive the notice; the notice required cheque clearance for payment to be effective, and because the cheque did not clear no payment occurred; the magistrate correctly dismissed the review and the appellate court, on rehearing, found no error and dismissed the appeal.
29 Apr 2024

TRAN DINH NAM v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 1179
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL84/2024

The application for extension of time and leave to apply for judicial review is refused because the delay (over ten months) is inordinate, the applicant's explanations are incredible and unsupported, and the Board lawfully and reasonably applied the Begum principles and statutory requirements in finding no good reason to allow late filing; there is no arguable error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality to support leave.
24 Apr 2024

香港特別行政區訴劉衛芹

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 1393
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA31/2023

The magistrate's finding that the appellant failed to prove non‑receipt of the fixed penalty notice was not due to his own negligence was reasonable and justified; accordingly the appellant's review and appeal must be dismissed and the original order affirmed.
1 Feb 2024

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

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 398
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1447/2020

The Board lawfully found the 2018 Notice was served via the Duty Lawyer Service, the applicant's five-month delay was serious and unexplained, and on applying the Begum three-stage test (including consideration of the merits and prior final findings) there were no special circumstances to justify extension; the Board's application of law to facts contained no error, procedural unfairness or irrationality, therefore refusal of late filing was lawful and leave for judicial review was refused.
21 Jul 2023

李琬碧對沈啟宗及另三人

Citation

[2023] HKLdT 48
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDBM16/2022

The Tribunal accepted the applicant had mailed the discontinuance notice but computed the 14‑day period under the applicable rules and found the respondents' costs application was marginally late; the Tribunal properly exercised its discretion under rule 32 to extend time because the delay was inadvertent, short (two to three days) and caused no prejudice. The applicant lacked standing under Building Management Ordinance s45 to bring the application on the stated basis and therefore was likely to fail; accordingly costs were properly awarded to the respondents and the review application was d…
28 Apr 2023

EXTRA CONCEPT LTD v. AN JINCHEN

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 1133
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1591/2019

Defendant was bound by the Put Option Agreement he signed; contemporaneous documents and his conduct (payments, transfer documents, Side Letter) corroborated execution; he failed to adduce evidence to rebut signature or establish total failure of consideration; clause 3 estopped him from denying consideration; the Notice was validly served and defendant defaulted on completion, entitling plaintiff to specific performance to require purchase at the stated Option Price and to damages under clause 6.4; costs awarded against defendant.