Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Statutory stay

Legal area

Court

13 Nov 2024

TSE SAI KIT v. THE DIRECTOR OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 3255
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1256/2024

The summons for a stay was dismissed because, given the imminent expiry of the Legal Aid Department's three‑month performance target, the limited practical benefit of a short stay, the risk of successive extensions, and the strong public interest in expeditious resolution of significant public law and environmental litigation, the proper exercise of case management discretion required maintaining the timetable; the applicant may seek targeted extensions to specific steps if inability to comply is demonstrated.
17 Dec 2019

RE MUHAMMAD NASIR

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 2924
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1384/2018

The court held that none of the proposed grounds were reasonably arguable, there was no error of law or procedural unfairness before the Director or the Board, and there was no reasonable prospect of success; accordingly the court lifted the legal aid statutory stay and refused the applicant leave to apply for judicial review.
30 Oct 2013

LIU WAI KEUNG v. LIU WAI MAN

Citation

LIU WAI KEUNG v. LIU WAI MAN
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1106/2011

The application to lift the statutory stay was dismissed because the statutory stay was validly triggered by the Director's memorandum under section 15 and regulation 7A, the court should be slow to lift such a stay, and the plaintiff failed to demonstrate sufficient prejudice or hardship to justify exercise of the discretion to lift the stay.
29 Dec 2009

PRISCILLA LAU v. CHAN YIN HONG AND ANOTHER

Citation

PRISCILLA LAU v. CHAN YIN HONG AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP2536/2009

The trial judge's factual finding that the cut was caused accidentally by the plaintiff's sudden movement and not intentionally established that there was no cause of action; therefore the application for leave to appeal was totally without merit and must be refused; the statutory stay was lifted and costs ordered to the defendants, with an order nisi under Order 59 rule 2A(8) preventing oral rehearing requests.
24 Jun 2005

BANK OF CHINA (HONG KONG) LTD v. FU MING KONG MICHAEL AND ANOTHER

Citation

BANK OF CHINA (HONG KONG) LTD v. FU MING KONG MICHAEL AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP3909/2000

The court exercised its discretion to lift the statutory stay under section 15(4) because the 1st defendant's second application was made on the eve of trial without satisfactory evidence of a material change in circumstances, the defendant had earlier opportunities to seek legal aid or representation and had acted in person, and therefore the stay could not be used to abort trial dates.
23 Jul 2004

MA PUI TUNG v. LEUNG LIT ON AND OTHERS

Citation

MA PUI TUNG v. LEUNG LIT ON AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA4492/2003

The court accepted the plaintiff's explanation for the delay (mistaken belief the Official Receiver had taken over) and the Legal Aid Department's confirmation that the application and related matters had been under consideration since 27 April 2004; on that factual basis it was unjust to uplift the statutory stay, so the defendants' application to uplift the stay was dismissed and costs of the application were ordered to be in the appeal.
6 Apr 2000

THE CHINA STATE BANK LTD. v. WONG CHUN YING t/a WING FUNG HONG CO.

Citation

THE CHINA STATE BANK LTD. v. WONG CHUN YING t/a WING FUNG HONG CO.
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA10825/1999

The judge declined to lift the statutory 42-day stay because the defendant demonstrated reasonable grounds both for the lateness of the legal aid application and for an arguable defence (notably a possible ground that the plaintiff is not a holder in due course); accordingly the stay remains and the appeal hearing is adjourned.
2 Jul 1993

LEE SHIU MING v. YEO HIAP SENG (HONG KONG) LTD.

Citation

LEE SHIU MING v. YEO HIAP SENG (HONG KONG) LTD.
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV39/1993

The Deputy Judge misdirected himself in law and fact in lifting the statutory stay and dismissing the application for leave to appeal; because the Legal Aid Department had complied with s.15(2) and the non‑attendance was excusable, the discretion under s.15(4) should have resulted in the stay remaining in place; the order lifting the stay and dismissing the application was set aside and the matter remitted to the High Court for rehearing by a different judge.