Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Service of notices

Legal area

Court

4 Feb 2026

THE BANK OF EAST ASIA, LTD v. DARE LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

[2026] HKCA 106
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV471/2025

The Court held the SOC sufficiently pleaded the material fact that notice of acceleration was given by the KWM letters and did not need to plead the precise means of delivery; Clause 27.3(a)(ii) unambiguously makes a letter posted with postage prepaid effective five business days after posting whether or not actually received, so no triable issue existed and summary judgment was correctly upheld.
3 Jul 2025

THE BANK OF EAST ASIA, LTD v. DARE LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 2710
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1359/2023

Because Clause 27.3(a)(ii) of the Facility Agreement provides that a letter is effective five business days after deposit in the post, and plaintiff's affidavit evidence established that the KWM Letter was posted in accordance with that clause, service was effective whether or not defendants actually received the letter; defendants failed to establish any triable issue or credible defence and therefore summary judgment was properly entered and the appeal was dismissed.
23 Jul 2024

律政司司長訴鍾錫佳

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 1765
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCSA32/2024

The defendant failed to demonstrate any arguable point of law; the Tribunal's findings were fact‑based and there was no legal error in treating the defendant's assertions as unsupported and in concluding there was no waiver or binding representation; therefore leave to appeal under s28(1) was properly refused.
8 Sept 2022

香港特別行政區訴李彥進

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 2729
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA111/2022

The magistrate correctly found on the balance of probabilities that the appellant did not prove non-receipt was not due to his negligence because his admitted practice of checking the mailbox only once every one to two weeks amounted to negligence; there was no evidence of postal misdelivery; therefore s16A(1) relief to cancel the s16(2) order was not available and the appeal is dismissed.
30 Nov 2020

RE HONGKONG CORFU INDUSTRY LTD

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 3039
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCW236/2020

The Company failed to adduce sufficiently precise evidence of a bona fide dispute on substantial grounds. The Acceleration Notice validly accelerated the EUR debt following an event of default; service of the notice complied with the communication clauses; the petitioner acquired enforceable rights under the USD facility by court‑approved merger; any "without prejudice" claim was waived. Accordingly the statutory demand established undisputed debts and a winding‑up order was appropriate.
22 Mar 2019

曾錦蘭對林芳妃

Citation

[2019] HKLdT 23
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDPD215/2019

The tribunal found on the balance of probabilities that the tenant (or persons associated with the tenant) removed the kitchen and stove and altered the unit and that the unit had been subdivided for other occupants, constituting a breach of the implied covenant in s117(3)(g). The tribunal accepted the owner's evidence (photos, third‑party access, WhatsApp context) and rejected respondent's denials. The non-standard review application to stay or overturn the 22 Feb 2019 possession judgment was dismissed. However, because the posting of Form 22 did not fully comply with r7A, the tribunal exerc…
9 Jul 2018

RE A SIGNBOARD ATTACHED TO THE EXTERNAL WALL OF 2/F TO 4/F, NO 60 SAI YEUNG CHOI STREET SOUTH, KOWLOON (FACING SAI YEUNG CHOI STREET SOUTH AND NELSON STREET)

Citation

[2018] HKDC 760
Court

District Court
Case number

DCMP1530/2018

All three statutory conditions for granting PDOs under BO s24B were satisfied on the evidence: proper notice was given, the signboards were unauthorised works in contravention of BO s14, and expert evidence established they posed an imminent danger and were being let for profit; the respondent failed to produce evidence to rebut the BA and its purported representative lacked authority to act for the company, therefore the court exercised its discretion to grant PDOs as sought.
6 Apr 2017

LAM HON KEUNG KEITH v. GENERAL TARGET DEVELOPMENT LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

LAM HON KEUNG KEITH v. GENERAL TARGET DEVELOPMENT LTD AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP183/2016

Even accepting the plaintiff's factual assertions for strike-out purposes, the resolutions were passed by persons holding sufficient votes to convene meetings and determine the outcome; the plaintiff disavowed reliance on defective service of notices and therefore the irregularity principle applies, making the plaintiff's case unsustainable and liable to be struck out.
28 Jul 2016

GOLDEN BEST INVESTMENT LTD v. SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE

Citation

GOLDEN BEST INVESTMENT LTD v. SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1288/2016

Leave to appeal was refused because the claimant failed to identify a question of law of general public importance: the sufficiency of photographic evidence for service is a factual matter for the Tribunal under s.23 SCTO, and the contention that s.35(2) Buildings Ordinance prescribes the only mode of proof is unarguable as s.35(2) is permissive.
24 Jun 2016

GROUP LEADER LTD AND OTHERS v. HUI SUN FAT AND OTHERS

Citation

GROUP LEADER LTD AND OTHERS v. HUI SUN FAT AND OTHERS
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV110/2015

The Court held the Director's contention that s.8(1) encompasses non‑proprietary rights was unsustainable because the statutory definition in s.8(6) confines 'rights of any prior owner' to rights arising from ownership of an undivided share which affect the lot; therefore the Director's grounds were not reasonably arguable and leave to appeal was refused; consequently the separate market value issue need not be determined by this Court.