Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Summary jurisdiction

Legal area

Court

13 Jul 2023

LEUNG TUNG HOI AND ANOTHER v. LAI YIP DYEING FACTORY LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 1732
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA447/2018

The application for a wasted costs inquiry was dismissed: applicants failed to establish the clear, cogent evidence necessary to justify an inquiry under Order 62 r8; legal professional privilege and lack of evidence prevented fair investigation and required giving solicitors the benefit of doubt; proportionality and the court's broad discretion under Ma So So and Medcalf weigh against proceeding; prior appellate treatment of the derivative claim reinforced that the claim raised serious questions and did not demonstrate solicitor misconduct; accordingly no inquiry ordered and applicants order…
13 Jul 2023

MICHAEL YAP AND ANOTHER v. LAI YIP DYEING FACTORY LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 1732
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1084/2011

The application for a wasted costs inquiry was dismissed because the applicants misread Ma So So, the asserted prima facie case and inferences from late withdrawal or consolidation were unsupported by evidence, legal professional privilege prevents disclosure of critical advice so doubt must benefit the solicitors, the Court of Appeal had found a serious question to be tried in the derivative claim, and in all the circumstances it is not fair or justified to order an inquiry; exercise of discretion required refusal and costs awarded to the Losing Parties.
21 May 2015

RE LEUNG CHERNG JIUNN

Citation

RE LEUNG CHERNG JIUNN
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCB244/2014

Petition dismissed because the petitioner failed to include and thus could not rely on the Guarantee in the statutory demand and did not adequately set out or prove the bases of the claimed debt; there existed a bona fide triable dispute as to liability to repay the sign-on fee given alleged pre-contractual representations and inconsistencies between conduct and written terms, so bankruptcy summary jurisdiction could not be exercised.
17 Oct 2014

GAMMON CONSTRUCTION LTD v. HKSAR

Citation

GAMMON CONSTRUCTION LTD v. HKSAR
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL95/2014

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the grounds were not reasonably arguable: the magistrate was entitled to grant the amendments either under s27 or the ancillary implied power to cure defects; the amendments merely particularised the predicated s6A offender in line with Paul Y, arose from the same or substantially same facts, were not time‑barred, and any issues are more appropriately resolved at trial and, if necessary, on appeal rather than by collateral judicial review.
3 Aug 2011

LAM ROGERIO SOU FUNG v. KU LING YU JOHN t/a MESSRS JOHN KU & CO

Citation

LAM ROGERIO SOU FUNG v. KU LING YU JOHN t/a MESSRS JOHN KU & CO
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1916/2007

The appeal was allowed and the Master's wasted costs orders were set aside because the matters raised were complex, factually contested and unsuitable for summary disposal under RHC O.62 r.8; the proper remedy for the plaintiff is to pursue a full action for professional negligence rather than a wasted costs summary application.
23 Dec 2009

LAM ROGERIO SOU FUNG v. KU LING YU JOHN T/A MESSRS JOHN KU & CO.

Citation

LAM ROGERIO SOU FUNG v. KU LING YU JOHN T/A MESSRS JOHN KU & CO.
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1916/2007

Court found on the evidence that the solicitor disclosed privileged counsel advice without the client’s informed consent, failed properly to advise on discovery and on discontinuance (common fund vs party and party costs), and that those failures caused unnecessary wasted costs; exercise of discretion warranted a wasted costs order against the defendant solicitors and an order for costs on a full indemnity basis, order nisi with liberty to apply within 14 days.
17 Jul 2007

HKSAR v. TSE SO SO

Citation

HKSAR v. TSE SO SO
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FACC1/2007

The Court held that magistrates possess an implied ancillary power to amend informations prior to trial as necessary for the effective exercise of summary jurisdiction; section 27 regulates how an adjudicating magistrate must deal with defects or variances during trial but does not preclude pre-trial amendments by other magistrates, and the pre-trial amendments in this case were valid so the trial was within jurisdiction.
16 Sept 2004

MA SO SO JOSEPHINE v. CHIN YUK LUN FRANCIS

Citation

MA SO SO JOSEPHINE v. CHIN YUK LUN FRANCIS
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FACV15/2003

A solicitor who, in relation to proceedings, issues or pursues litigation known to be false so as to abuse the court's process may be ordered under O 62 r 8 to indemnify the opposing party for costs reasonably caused by that misconduct where causation and procedural fairness are established; in this case the Court found the necessary misconduct, causation and procedural fairness and upheld an order that the appellant indemnify the respondents for the Writ Action costs, while varying the O 62 r 8 hearing costs to party‑and‑party basis.
2 Apr 1996

RE ICS COMPUTER DISTRIBUTION LTD

Citation

RE ICS COMPUTER DISTRIBUTION LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCW615/1995

The Court refused to strike out the winding-up petition because the Company failed to adduce sufficiently precise prima facie evidence to show a bona fide dispute on substantial grounds in respect of the principal cross-claims (notably shipment delay, unmarketable stock and parallel imports totalling approx. US$26,475,582.94); there was also no evidence of the Company's solvency or ability to pay debts as they fall due, so the petition stands.
2 Feb 1993

THE QUEEN v. NYUYEN BACH XUYEN

Citation

THE QUEEN v. NYUYEN BACH XUYEN
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA833/1992

Section 92 must be read disjunctively: a magistrate has power to impose imprisonment or a fine but not both; accordingly the magistrate exceeded jurisdiction by imposing a $3,000 fine in addition to a 12 month imprisonment, so the fine was set aside while the imprisonment was confirmed.