Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Sub‑leases

Legal area

Court

10 Jul 2025

鄧昇旗 AND ANOTHER v. 身份不詳的佔用人

Citation

[2025] HKDC 1158
Court

District Court
Case number

DCMP6908/2024

The stay was maintained because the interveners presented a bona fide, substantive dispute over entitlement to immediate possession that is already being litigated in HCA 154; proceeding with the summary O 113 actions would risk duplicity and inconsistent determinations. Joinder of the interveners (and leave to join two occupiers) was appropriate to give them standing; the appropriate case management solution was to stay the five originating summonses pending resolution of HCA 154, permit specific joinders and amendments, and order a structured process and timeline for directions after resolu…
10 Jul 2025

鄧昇旗 AND ANOTHER v. 身份不詳的佔用人

Citation

[2025] HKDC 1158
Court

District Court
Case number

DCMP6907/2024

The Court maintained the Registrar's stay of the five Order 113 proceedings pending resolution of HCA 154 because the central disputes over entitlement to immediate possession are substantively before HCA 154 and proceeding in the District Court risks duplicity and inconsistent findings; the Interveners were joined as defendants, 鄒 and 中創工程 were permitted to be joined, the OSPs' appeals were dismissed, cross‑appeals allowed in part, leave to amend was granted and costs were apportioned (OSP pay 60% to Interveners, 40% treated as costs in the cause) with specified procedural directions.
10 Jul 2025

鄧昇旗 AND ANOTHER v. 身份不詳的佔用人

Citation

[2025] HKDC 1158
Court

District Court
Case number

DCMP6912/2024

The stay of the five Originating Summonses is maintained because the core disputes over entitlement to immediate possession of the lands are substantively before HCA 154 and must be resolved first to avoid duplicity and inconsistent determinations; accordingly the Interveners are to be joined, the appeals dismissed, leave given to join identified occupiers and to amend the Originating Summonses, and costs are apportioned with the OSPs to pay 60% of the set of costs to the Interveners and 40% treated as costs in the cause with limited costs for the three respective occupiers.
26 May 2008

THE BANK OF EAST ASIA, LTD v. LABOUR BUILDINGS LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

THE BANK OF EAST ASIA, LTD v. LABOUR BUILDINGS LTD AND OTHERS
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV33/2008

The application for a further stay was refused because the defendants failed to adduce credible, specific evidence of realistic refinancing or adequate security to protect the plaintiff's position; the evidence before the court was speculative and suggested funds derived from a third party, so payment should not be deferred further.
24 Apr 2008

THE BANK OF EAST ASIA, LTD v. LABOUR BUILDING LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

THE BANK OF EAST ASIA, LTD v. LABOUR BUILDING LTD AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP769/2002

Appellants (LBL/CSL) failed to discharge the burden of showing a stay was necessary because they did not provide credible evidence that a successful appeal would be rendered nugatory: anonymity of backers and absence of evidence of ability or willingness to fund the judgment debt, failures to comply with prior court‑imposed safeguards, market volatility and risk of forced sale discount meant the court would not grant a stay; appointment of receivers was not ordered because not necessary on the evidence presented.

Hong Kong Case Law

鄧昇旗 AND ANOTHER v. 身份不詳的佔用人

鄧昇旗 AND ANOTHER v. 身份不詳的佔用人

鄧昇旗 AND ANOTHER v. 身份不詳的佔用人

THE BANK OF EAST ASIA, LTD v. LABOUR BUILDINGS LTD AND OTHERS

THE BANK OF EAST ASIA, LTD v. LABOUR BUILDING LTD AND OTHERS