Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Small claims jurisdiction

Legal area

Court

31 Mar 2025

GHALAY ROMA v. SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE sued for and on behalf of DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION

Citation

[2025] HKDC 493
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ1155/2021

Defendant failed to prove exceptional circumstances to displace the prima facie entitlement under Order 22 r20(1). The court accepted that the plaintiff enjoyed a reasonable prospect of recovering damages above the Small Claims Tribunal limit when issuing proceedings; therefore plaintiff is entitled to costs up to acceptance to be taxed on District Court scale, summarily assessed at HK$15,000 after a broad-brush reduction of manifestly excessive items.
29 Sept 2023

李靜對趙、司徒、鄭律師事務所及另一人

Citation

[2023] HKDC 1362
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ4966/2021

The court refused leave because the proposed grounds merely repeated previously rejected arguments and misunderstandings of prior judgments without rebutting the trial judge's reasons; jurisdictional and procedural bases (Small Claims Tribunal for solicitor's fees) were correctly applied; the costs orders fell within judicial discretion and were not unreasonable or legally erroneous, therefore no reasonable prospect of success and no other grounds in the interests of justice to grant permission.
24 Jul 2023

李靜對趙、司徒、鄭律師事務所及另一人

Citation

[2023] HKDC 1014
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ4966/2021

The court found the pleaded rental claim lacked any reasonable cause because prior final judgments and vesting orders had divested the plaintiff of any interest in the property and that fact was indisputable; the Limitation Ordinance s26 was misconstrued by the plaintiff and does not create a standalone cause of action; the claim for legal fees was within the Small Claims Tribunal jurisdiction and therefore bringing it in the District Court constituted abuse of process. Accordingly the amended writ and statement of claim were struck out and all claims against the first and second defendants d…
28 Dec 2021

STEPHEN KRUGER v. SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 3834
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCSA13/2020

Leave to appeal was refused because the intended appeal had no real prospect of success: the Tribunal correctly concluded it lacked jurisdiction over the appellant's pleaded claim (not being contract, quasi‑contract or tort), the police were authorized to check identity under s17C(2) in a bona fide immigration operation, the appellant produced no evidence of exemption, damage or malice to sustain tort claims, and the costs awards were supported by the Secretary for Justice's clear statement and evidence.
8 Mar 2019

LEE CHICK CHOI v. THE DIRECTOR OF LEGAL AID

Citation

[2019] HKCA 275
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV276/2018

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because (1) an alternative appeal avenue existed and judicial review is a last resort; (2) the Director's refusal to grant legal aid was not Wednesbury unreasonable given counsel's considered opinion and the subsequent striking out of the District Court action demonstrating lack of merit; (3) the claim was properly assessed as likely to fall within the Small Claims jurisdiction and the intended judicial review was therefore academic; and (4) the judge did not err in refusing extension of time and ordering costs against the applicant.
21 Aug 2017

侯錦榮對許淑珊及另一人

Citation

侯錦榮對許淑珊及另一人
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1498/2017

Leave to appeal was refused because the District Court claim was barred by res judicata given the prior SCTC judgment covering the same work, the leave application was out of time, and the appeal had no reasonable prospect of success under s63A(2); costs were awarded to the respondents in the sum of HKD1000 assessed as summary costs.
27 Jan 2017

THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF FLORA GARDEN v. LI DO WAI AND OTHERS

Citation

THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF FLORA GARDEN v. LI DO WAI AND OTHERS
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDBM283/2014

The Tribunal exercised its discretion and dismissed the respondents' applications to vary the costs orders nisi: the IO was not unreasonable in mediation or in instituting proceedings in the Lands Tribunal given the complexity, the respondents' partial success on the 10% Additional Costs did not justify depriving the IO of costs, alleged solicitor non-compliance and procedural matters did not warrant variation at this stage, and costs should follow the event; accordingly the variation applications were dismissed and costs awarded to the applicant to be taxed at District Court scale if not agr…
20 Mar 2015

SUPREMACY TRADING CO LTD v. PEARL DRAGON INVESTMENTS LTD

Citation

SUPREMACY TRADING CO LTD v. PEARL DRAGON INVESTMENTS LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCSA57/2014

The Adjudicator erred in law by treating the signed and stamped documents as establishing binding new tenancies despite absence of communicated acceptance prior to the claimant's withdrawal; on the undisputed primary facts the purported acceptances were not communicated in time and the claimant validly terminated, so the Tribunal's orders were set aside and judgment entered for the claimant.
25 Aug 2011

LEGENT CERAMIC LTD v. RAINBOW CHOICE INVESTMENT LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

LEGENT CERAMIC LTD v. RAINBOW CHOICE INVESTMENT LTD AND ANOTHER
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ2434/2008

The application was dismissed because the court found the plaintiff's overall claim was not a gross or wilful exaggeration such that it lacked a reasonable prospect of recovery in the District Court except for specific items; Rainbow Choice had the opportunity to protect its costs position by sanctioned offers but did not; there was no basis to transfer the IO's District Court scale costs to the plaintiff or to order reduction to Small Claims scale.
25 May 2007

倪瑞武及另一人 v. 恒陞大樓業主立案法團及另一人

Citation

倪瑞武及另一人 v. 恒陞大樓業主立案法團及另一人
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ4651/2005

Applying Elgindata principles and Order 62/section 53 discretion, the court held that although the 1st Plaintiff grossly inflated the irritation damages claim, both plaintiffs had limited successes; therefore the original Order Nisi is varied: no order as to costs for the action between each plaintiff and the 1st Defendant, the 1st Defendant is awarded costs of its variation application against each plaintiff save for the unproven service hearing on 13 April 2007, fixed at gross sums ($600 each) with the 1st Defendant to pay the 2nd Plaintiff $100 for the 13 April hearing; no certificate for…