Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Setting aside writ

Legal area

Court

11 Oct 2013

GANNON VIETNAM COMPANY LTD AND ANOTHER v. ROBERT PAUL GREENE

Citation

GANNON VIETNAM COMPANY LTD AND ANOTHER v. ROBERT PAUL GREENE
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA584/2012

Leave refused. Franke's 2nd Affidavit refused because Master had already exercised discretion and refused its admission and plaintiffs pursued wrong procedure instead of appealing that refusal; Expert Opinion refused because plaintiffs failed to show it could not have been obtained with reasonable diligence (first Ladd v Marshall condition) and admitting it would undermine the purpose of O58 r1(5).
13 Aug 2008

SUNCO PROPERTY HOLDINGS CO LTD AND ANOTHER v. SUNCO CHINA HOLDINGS LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

SUNCO PROPERTY HOLDINGS CO LTD AND ANOTHER v. SUNCO CHINA HOLDINGS LTD AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2145/2007

The court dismissed the 3rd defendant's application to set aside the writ because the plaintiffs had provided sufficient material to justify service out of jurisdiction under Order 11, the affidavit statements were not shown to be false or misleading in a way that would invalidate service, and the primary purpose of Order 11 — giving notice to the defendant — was achieved.
29 Jun 2007

WONG YUEN, MAISIE v. YUE LEUNG PUI

Citation

WONG YUEN, MAISIE v. YUE LEUNG PUI
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA11140/1999

The Master was correct to partially set aside the Writ by deleting the descriptive words because the Writ, as enforced, threatened trespass against occupiers of a structure standing on government land and the Plaintiff either knew or ought to have known the description had become inappropriate; the Applicant had sufficient interest (de facto possession/possession against trespass) to apply; given the Plaintiff's conduct in seeking enforcement despite the changed circumstances, the Plaintiff must pay all costs of the application and costs of the appeal (certificate for counsel, taxed if not ag…
21 Dec 2001

Tang Man Kit v. Hip Hing Timber Co. Ltd.

Citation

Tang Man Kit v. Hip Hing Timber Co. Ltd.
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA8000/1990

The writ was issued without authority and was set aside; Tang and Foo were not shown to be representative plaintiffs because representative status was not indorsed on the writ nor properly pleaded, and even if representative they would not be exempt from personal liability for costs; accordingly the action was dismissed and costs were ordered against Tang and Foo (with a temporal limitation on Foo's liability).

Hong Kong Case Law

GANNON VIETNAM COMPANY LTD AND ANOTHER v. ROBERT PAUL GREENE

SUNCO PROPERTY HOLDINGS CO LTD AND ANOTHER v. SUNCO CHINA HOLDINGS LTD AND OTHERS

WONG YUEN, MAISIE v. YUE LEUNG PUI

Tang Man Kit v. Hip Hing Timber Co. Ltd.