Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Setting aside ex parte orders

Legal area

Court

14 Aug 2024

PHAM VAN HANG v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 1984
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL271/2022

Although the Court had jurisdiction under Order 32 rule 6 to set aside the ex parte dismissal, the applicant failed to show good cause or merits to re-open the application and there was no illegality or irregularity in the ex parte order; consequently the application to re-open was dismissed and the ex parte order was left intact.
4 May 2022

THE YIN NIN SAVINGS MORTGAGE LOAN & LAND INVESTMENT CO LTD AND ANOTHER v. OCCUPIER(S) OF PREMISES (save and except the 2nd Defendant to the 9th Defendant) AND OTHERS

Citation

[2022] HKCA 613
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV240/2021

The Court of Appeal held the Master properly invoked the slip rule to amend the Consent Order to reflect his manifested intention to permit separate representation; the Judge erred in directing a fresh reconsideration because the slip rule was the correct vehicle where the order did not express the Masters intention; if defendants wished to challenge an alleged ex parte aspect they should have applied to set aside or appealed but did not, and the Court reinstated the Masters Amendment Order and set aside the Judges decision.
14 Apr 2022

YKH v. LSM

Citation

[2022] HKFC 88
Court

Family Court
Case number

FCMC243/2011

The court found the petitioner deliberately misstated that the respondent had taken the child in 2004 and failed to disclose material facts (including the child's availability and other contacts); the nondisclosures were material to the court's weighing operation and not innocent, therefore the three ex parte substituted service orders (and the directions order based on them) were discharged, the ancillary relief judgment was set aside and a trial de novo ordered; costs awarded to the respondent.
19 Aug 2019

HUSSAIN SAYYED RASHID v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD/ NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2019] HKCA 929
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV200/2019

The Court set aside the Deputy High Court Judge's order dismissing the leave application for want of prosecution because the applicant had a reasonable explanation for absence (registered post notice returned) and the court has jurisdiction under the Rules of the High Court to set aside such orders; the matter was remitted to the judge to conduct a hearing on the merits of the leave application.
15 May 2019

CITY UNIVERSITY OF HONG KONG v. HANS RICHARD MAHNCKE

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 1250
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA935/2014

Because the writ of summons was served pursuant to a valid court order for substituted service, the judgment was regular; the defendant failed to establish material non-disclosure warranting discharge of the ex parte order, failed to provide satisfactory explanation for delay, and failed to demonstrate a real prospect of success on the merits, therefore the application to set aside the judgment was refused.
8 Jun 2018

HO CHOR MING v. HONG KONG CHIU CHOW PO HING BUDDHISM ASSOCIATION LTD

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 1104
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP506/2013

The Association, as the party whose assets are charged with payment of the Receiver's fees and expenses, is entitled as a matter of natural justice and pursuant to RHC Order 30 and Order 62 to participate in the assessment process; the court has jurisdiction to set aside or re-open assessments performed in the absence of the Association (including via Order 32 r6 or by exercising powers under Order 30 r5), and on the facts the Master’s assessments should be re-opened insofar as items are properly objected to after disclosure of bills and particulars.
21 Feb 2013

FALCON PRIVATE BANK LTD v. BORRY BERNARD EDOUARD CHARLES LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

FALCON PRIVATE BANK LTD v. BORRY BERNARD EDOUARD CHARLES LTD AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP2693/2012

Leave to appeal was refused because the judge's decisions were discretionary, there was no reasonable prospect of success on the intended appeal: the plaintiff had at least an arguable answer to the Swiss law defence, the Swiss law point emerged late and any omission to draw it to the ex parte judge's attention was an innocent oversight for which the exercise of discretion not to set aside the ex parte orders was sustainable, and the pleadings were not plainly and obviously defective to warrant strike‑out.
5 Aug 2005

KGL v. CKY AND ANOTHER

Citation

KGL v. CKY AND ANOTHER
Court

Family Court
Case number

FCMC1453/2002

The court found that three of the four challenged service orders (dispensing with personal service, substituted service by advertisement, and dispensing with service of a late affidavit) were ineffective because there was no evidence the 2nd Respondent had notice; those service failures rendered the resulting disposition orders irregular. Exercising jurisdiction under RHC (including O.35 r.2 with extension and O.2(2) for irregularity), the court set aside the parts of the disposition and service orders affecting the 2nd Respondent and ordered a re-hearing because the 2nd Respondent had real p…
23 Mar 1988

RE MOUNT EVEREST INVESTMENTS LTD

Citation

RE MOUNT EVEREST INVESTMENTS LTD
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV22/1988

There was material non-disclosure and misstatement in the supporting affidavit; although the judge below found the failures were not deliberate, the court nevertheless must exercise its discretion and, in the circumstances, the appeal is allowed and the ex parte order appointing the Official Receiver as provisional liquidator is set aside because the petitioner obtained an advantage by a wrongly obtained ex parte order which the court will not permit to stand.