Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Time limits for challenges

Legal area

Court

10 Jan 2013

HO CHUN YAN, ALBERT v. LEUNG CHUN YING AND ANOTHER

Citation

HO CHUN YAN, ALBERT v. LEUNG CHUN YING AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FAMV25/2012

Because the challenges based on the pleaded statements were plainly hopeless, the Court held that costs should follow the event: Mr C Y Leung is entitled to his costs of the leave applications against Mr Albert Ho and Mr Leung Kwok Hung respectively, to be taxed unless agreed; costs of the applicants' leave to appeal in respect of earlier costs orders are to be in the cause of that appeal.
10 Jan 2013

HO CHUN YAN, ALBERT v. LEUNG CHUN YING AND ANOTHER

Citation

HO CHUN YAN, ALBERT v. LEUNG CHUN YING AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FAMV32/2012

The Court held that the reliance on the core statements underlying the challenges was plainly hopeless; accordingly costs should follow the event and Mr C Y Leung is entitled to his costs of the leave applications, to be paid by Mr Albert Ho and Mr Leung Kwok Hung respectively and taxed unless agreed; costs of the specific leave application concerning costs are to be in the cause of that appeal.
13 Nov 2012

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. HO CHUN YAN, ALBERT AND OTHERS

Citation

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. HO CHUN YAN, ALBERT AND OTHERS
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FAMV24/2012

The Court held it has jurisdiction under section 22(1)(c) purposively construed to entertain leap-frog appeals in CEEO matters; refused leave to appeal on the substantive challenges to Lam JA's striking out and dismissal because the first statement fell outside ECICO s26 period and the continuation argument was not reasonably arguable, and because the second statement had no real prospect of establishing illegal conduct under s26; further held that where a time limit is unconstitutional a reading-in of a discretion to extend time is an appropriate minimal remedy and that the proper threshold…
14 Sept 2009

G v. M

Citation

G v. M
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCT36/2009

The Originating Summons was dismissed because it was out of time under RHC Order 73 Rule 5 with no application to extend the 30-day limit; it repeated allegations earlier raised and abandoned, constituting an abuse of process; and the asserted procedural irregularities and alleged communications did not amount to demonstrable bias or legal error sufficient to refuse enforcement. Consequently the ex parte enforcement Order was made absolute.

Hong Kong Case Law

HO CHUN YAN, ALBERT v. LEUNG CHUN YING AND ANOTHER

HO CHUN YAN, ALBERT v. LEUNG CHUN YING AND ANOTHER

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. HO CHUN YAN, ALBERT AND OTHERS

G v. M