Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Stay of orders

Legal area

Court

13 Nov 2014

CHIU LUEN PUBLIC LIGHT BUS CO LTD v. PERSONS UNLAWFULLY OCCUPYING OR REMAINING ON THE PUBLIC HIGHWAY NAMELY, THE WESTBOUND CARRIAGEWAY OF ARGYLE STREET BETWEEN THE JUNCTION OF TUNG CHOI STREET AND PORTLAND STREET AND/OR OTHER PERSONS HINDERING OR PREVENTING THE PASSING OR REPASSING OF ARGYLE STREET AND ANOTHER

Citation

CHIU LUEN PUBLIC LIGHT BUS CO LTD v. PERSONS UNLAWFULLY OCCUPYING OR REMAINING ON THE PUBLIC HIGHWAY NAMELY, THE WESTBOUND CARRIAGEWAY OF ARGYLE STREET BETWEEN THE JUNCTION OF TUNG CHOI STREET AND PORTLAND STREET AND/OR OTHER PERSONS HINDERING OR PREVENTING THE PASSING OR REPASSING OF ARGYLE STREET AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2086/2014

The court refused leave to appeal because the grounds advanced by the 2nd and 3rd defendants were repeats of previously rejected arguments or otherwise unarguable and lacked a reasonable prospect of success; consequently there was no basis to grant a stay of the orders.
13 Nov 2014

LAI HOI PING AND ANOTHER v. PERSONS OCCUPYING PORTIONS OF NATHAN ROAD NEAR TO AND BETWEEN ARGYLE STREET AND DUNDAS STREET TO PREVENT OR OBSTRUCT NORMAL VEHICULAR TRAFFIC FROM PASSING AND REPASSING THE OCCUPIED AREAS AND OTHERS

Citation

LAI HOI PING AND ANOTHER v. PERSONS OCCUPYING PORTIONS OF NATHAN ROAD NEAR TO AND BETWEEN ARGYLE STREET AND DUNDAS STREET TO PREVENT OR OBSTRUCT NORMAL VEHICULAR TRAFFIC FROM PASSING AND REPASSING THE OCCUPIED AREAS AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2104/2014

The court refused leave to appeal and denied stay because the grounds advanced by the 2nd and 3rd defendants were either repeats of arguments previously rejected, not reasonably arguable or not formally raised; the plaintiff had demonstrated on the evidence a triable issue as to particular, substantial and direct loss; and there was no sufficient legal basis to limit or overturn the injunction or grant a stay.
8 Aug 2014

CHEN WENJUN v. LIU LUYUAN AND ANOTHER

Citation

CHEN WENJUN v. LIU LUYUAN AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1802/2014

The court continued the ex parte injunction pending determination, allowed limited variation to permit the 1st defendant weekly living expenses of HK$30,000 on filing a corroborating affidavit and legal expenses at HK$300,000/week subject to an overall cap of HK$2.1 million, kept the disclosure order in force but stayed the inspection order pending the substantive hearing and/or discharge application while permitting the plaintiff liberty to apply to lift the stay; time limits for filing evidence and compliance were fixed and costs were ordered in the cause with a certificate for two counsel.
23 Apr 2014

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. FTCW AND OTHERS

Citation

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. FTCW AND OTHERS
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FAMV10/2014

Leave to appeal on the self-incrimination ground was refused because the Court was not persuaded that such an appeal was reasonably arguable; leave was granted on the discrete question whether documents already released to the Secretary for Justice (and in respect of which the wife was released from her implied undertaking by Ng J’s order) may be disclosed to the Secretary for Justice without first determining legal professional privilege; interlocutory stays and filing directions were ordered to preserve issues pending the appeal and costs were allocated accordingly.
23 Apr 2014

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. FTCW AND OTHERS

Citation

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. FTCW AND OTHERS
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FAMV12/2014

Leave to appeal on the ground of privilege against self-incrimination was refused as not reasonably arguable; leave was granted on a narrower question whether the specific documents already accessed by the Secretary for Justice and released from an implied undertaking may be disclosed to the Secretary for Justice under Ng J's order without first determining whether they are protected by legal professional privilege; consequential stays and directions were ordered pending determination of that appeal.
23 Apr 2014

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. FTCW AND OTHERS

Citation

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. FTCW AND OTHERS
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FAMV9/2014

The court refused leave to appeal on the ground of privilege against self-incrimination because that ground was not reasonably arguable, but granted leave on the discrete question whether documents released to the Secretary for Justice pursuant to Ng J’s order may be disclosed to the Secretary for Justice without first determining legal professional privilege; accordingly the court continued specified stays, directed the filing of affidavits to identify privilege claims, allocated costs for the self-incrimination applications to the husband and STL, and fixed the appeal for full hearing.
23 Apr 2014

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. FTCW AND OTHERS

Citation

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. FTCW AND OTHERS
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FAMV11/2014

Leave to appeal on the self-incrimination ground was refused because the Court was not persuaded that such an appeal was reasonably arguable; leave was granted on the narrow question whether documents released to the Secretary for Justice under Ng J’s 14 May 2013 order may be disclosed to the Secretary for Justice without first determining whether they attract legal professional privilege; interim stays and costs orders were made to preserve the position pending that appeal.
13 Dec 1996

Wellfit Investments Ltd. v. Poly Commence Ltd. and Another

Citation

Wellfit Investments Ltd. v. Poly Commence Ltd. and Another
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV56/1996

The court ordered that the lis pendens be vacated as the natural consequence of its judgment dismissing the respondent's claim for specific performance, but exercised its discretion to stay the operation of that vacatur until 4 March 1997, with liberty for the appellant to apply to discharge the stay and for the respondent to apply to extend it, and ordered costs of the hearing to be costs in the appeal.