11 May 2026
余欣德 對 行政上訴委員會 私隱專員公署 [Decision on Leave Application]
- Citation
- [2026] HKCFI 2727
- Court
- Court of First Instance
- Case number
- HCAL758/2026
申請人未能就擬提出的司法覆核申請顯示出可合理勝算或真實成功機會；委員會及公署的行為在法律上並無可撼動之錯誤或超出申請人許可申請所及之範圍，因此拒絕給予司法覆核許可及拒絕暫緩聆訊。
Hong Kong Case Law
Stay application
17 Sept 2025
KERRYFORD HOLDINGS LTD AND OTHERS v. PROFIT VALLEY LTD AND OTHERS
- Citation
- [2025] HKLdT 51
- Court
- Lands Tribunal
- Case number
- LDCS8000/2022
The review is dismissed because the Tribunal correctly exercised its discretion to fix a reserve price reflecting market evidence current at the date of the order rather than an earlier agreed valuation date; the Tribunal properly adopted a 3.4% retail capitalisation rate, applied or refused specific comparable adjustments for valid reasons (including a +5% building quality adjustment to NSS‑1), and there was no material change or error justifying upward revision of the RDV or a stay of sale.
24 Apr 2025
FUNG MIU HING SHIRLEY 對 CHIN NAI MAN
- Citation
- [2025] HKLdT 22
- Court
- Lands Tribunal
- Case number
- LDPD180/2025
The tribunal refused leave to appeal because the respondent's factual account was contradicted by contemporaneous WhatsApp messages and the applicant's bank records, so the proposed appeal had no reasonable prospect of success under s11AA(6); the tribunal also refused to admit fresh evidence at the leave hearing and refused a stay of possession.
31 Dec 2024
CHINA INDUSTRIAL SECURITIES INTERNATIONAL BROKERAGE LTD v. LOU YI
- Citation
- [2024] HKCFI 3693
- Court
- Court of First Instance
- Case number
- HCA1073/2021
The court exercised its power to summarily assess costs and, applying a broad brush approach, allowed and fixed specific sums: Order 14 application total at $146,000 (including a $100,000 brief); Order 14 appeal total at $590,000 (consisting of $150,000 for Items B–D5, $40,000 for Item E1, and $400,000 for counsel briefs). The court held that being 'costs in the cause' does not automatically validate counsel fees where no certificate was sought or granted.
16 Dec 2024
香港平民屋宇有限公司 對 黃錫添
- Citation
- [2024] HKDC 2110
- Court
- District Court
- Case number
- DCCJ5579/2023
The court refused the case-management stay because the judicial review raised issues different from the Regional Court private-law claims, many defendants had private-law defences that would remain live regardless of the JR outcome, and the balance of convenience and fairness favoured continuing the Regional Court proceedings; the court also declined to order an expedited trial at this stage given the pending JR hearing date and potential prejudice to defendants' preparation time.
16 Dec 2024
香港平民屋宇有限公司 對 馮德樂
- Citation
- [2024] HKDC 2110
- Court
- District Court
- Case number
- DCCJ39/2024
The court refused the case‑management stay and refused the expedited/fast‑track trial direction. The balance of convenience and fairness favored continuation of District Court proceedings because the High Court judicial review raises different public‑law issues and a JR result would not necessarily render the District Court private‑law disputes redundant; defendants have private‑law defences that must be pleaded and determined; a blanket rule to stay whenever a JR is pending is inappropriate; expedited trial was refused due to timing, risk of prejudice to defendants' ability to prepare and un…
16 Dec 2024
香港平民屋宇有限公司 對 譚蕙蘭
- Citation
- [2024] HKDC 2110
- Court
- District Court
- Case number
- DCCJ5582/2023
The court refused the case-management stay and declined expedited trial directions because the judicial review raises distinct public law issues that do not necessarily resolve the private law defences in the Regional Court; most defendants have private law defences they must plead now; the balance of convenience, fairness between parties and efficient use of court resources favor continuation of Regional Court procedures; uncertainty and prejudice to defendants made expedited trial inappropriate at this stage.
16 Dec 2024
香港平民屋宇有限公司 對 甄國業
- Citation
- [2024] HKDC 2110
- Court
- District Court
- Case number
- DCCJ5505/2023
The court exercised its case‑management discretion to refuse a stay of the District Court proceedings pending the High Court judicial review because the JR raises different public law issues that are not necessarily dispositive of the private law possession claims, the balance of convenience and fairness favoured continuation, and efficient use of court resources required the cases proceed; the court also refused to order an immediate expedited trial given uncertainty and potential prejudice to defendants, but left open further management (including a second case management conference after t…
16 Dec 2024
香港平民屋宇有限公司 對 趙慶嬋
- Citation
- [2024] HKDC 2110
- Court
- District Court
- Case number
- DCCJ2496/2024
The court refused the case-management stay because most defendants could not demonstrate the JR was their sole or dispositive defence, the JR raised different issues from the regional private-law claims, the balance of convenience favoured continuation, and judicial economy and fairness did not justify suspending proceedings. The court also refused fast-track directions because of substantive uncertainties and risk of prejudice to defendants given the pending JR hearing date and outstanding pleadings; a further case management hearing after the JR was appropriate to reassess timetable.
16 Dec 2024
香港平民屋宇有限公司 對 馬媚媚
- Citation
- [2024] HKDC 2110
- Court
- District Court
- Case number
- DCCJ5546/2023
The court refused the case-management stay and declined to give expedited trial directions because the balance of convenience, fairness and efficient use of resources favoured continuation: most defendants do not have the JR as their sole defence, private-law issues must be pleaded now to avoid delay and res judicata problems, and defendants may seek injunctive relief or postponement in the High Court if appropriate; consequently the stay application failed and no fast-track trial dates were fixed.