Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Translation of documents

Legal area

Court

29 May 2025

ISLAM MD ASHRAFUL v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD

Citation

[2025] HKCA 431
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV435/2024

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused and the appeal dismissed because the applicant failed to identify any reasonably arguable public law error or procedural unfairness; the Board's findings that risks were localized, involved non-state actors, and that state protection and internal relocation were available were open to the Board on the evidence; the new Bengali document would not have altered the factual matrix.
26 Mar 2025

KWAN KAM PING v. ANGEL FACE BEAUTY CREATIONS (INTERNATIONAL) LTD

Citation

[2025] HKDC 540
Court

District Court
Case number

DCPI426/2020

Solicitors on record owe a paramount and independent duty to assist the Court which overrides client instructions; accordingly the defendant’s solicitors were not entitled to refuse to prepare and lodge PTR/Trial bundles on the basis of their client’s instructions and the Court directed the defendant to prepare and lodge specified pre‑trial materials and complied with procedural requirements; the Joint Assessment Report accepted as expert evidence without calling the experts.
8 Apr 2024

HUI PO CHI 對 NEW LANTAO BUS COMPANY (1973) LTD

Citation

[2024] HKDC 552
Court

District Court
Case number

DCPI695/2019

The court ruled that parties are not required to translate original English hearing documents into Chinese because the presiding judge and defendant's counsel are bilingual and mandatory translation would not be cost-effective; instead the court made proportionate case management directions requiring the defendant to serve the trial bundle and related material earlier to ensure the unrepresented Cantonese-speaking plaintiff has sufficient time to obtain assistance, fixed the trial dates and specified trial language and use of witness statements.
2 Jul 2021

WEALTHY CREDIT SERVICES LTD 對 LEUNG OI FONG

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 1866
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1932/2019

The summons for permission to appeal out of time was dismissed because the proposed appeal had no reasonable prospect of success even if filed within time; the sale was effected under a court order and there was no arguable basis for an injunction; accordingly leave was refused and costs were awarded to the plaintiff on an indemnity basis to be paid immediately with the amount to be assessed by the court by summary assessment.
8 Jun 2021

SKK (H.K.) CO. LTD. 及另一人對 TSUI PO HING 及另一人

Citation

[2021] HKCA 805
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP194/2020

Leave to appeal was refused because the second defendant missed the applicable filing deadline such that there was no automatic right to file further affidavits; the judge's case management directions were lawful and not shown to be wrong in law or jurisdictional; the requested translations sought were for documents irrelevant to enforcement of the absolute charging orders; consequently the proposed appeals had no real prospect of success and the summonses for leave were dismissed with costs.
8 Jun 2021

SKK (H.K.) CO. LTD. 及另一人對 TSUI PO HING 及另一人

Citation

[2021] HKCA 805
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP263/2020

Leave to appeal was refused because the second defendant could not show any arguable ground or legal error in the judge's case management decisions: the deadline for filing affidavits had expired, the contested documents (notably the historic Legal Charge) were irrelevant to the enforcement of absolute charging orders, and the translation requests were unreasonable in respect of documents not committed to be translated; accordingly the summonses were struck out and costs awarded to the plaintiffs.
14 May 2021

CENTALINE PROPERTY AGENCY LTD v. LEE PO CHU FEONA

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 1400
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2054/2016

Leave to appeal was refused because the applicant failed to show reasonable prospects of success or any overriding interest of justice; the case management decisions were within the judge’s discretion given a bilingual trial judge, lack of required English translations, and the practical impossibility of finishing the trial within the allotted time if interpretation were required; the leave to file a supplementary witness statement was correctly limited to responding to the 2nd Supp WS and any application to add a new witness must be made to the trial judge with supporting witness statement.
14 May 2021

LEE PO CHU FEONA v. JOYCE CHAN & CO. (a firm)

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 1400
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2421/2016

Leave to appeal was refused in both actions: the refusal to order English/Punti interpretation was a proper exercise of case management discretion given a bilingual trial judge, absence of required translations and the risk of materially extending the fixed trial time; the limitation that the supplementary witness statement be 'solely' in response to the 2nd Supp WS was appropriate because leave was granted only in response to that document and any application to add a new witness must be made to the trial judge with a supporting witness statement.
17 Dec 2020

SKK (H.K.) CO LTD 及另一人對 TSUI PO HING 及另一人

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 3099
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP934/2019

Permission to appeal was refused because the second defendant had no real prospect of success and no other reason in the interests of justice to justify a hearing: he had failed to comply with the 28‑day requirement in Order 28 r1A(4) for filing affidavit evidence after service, had not sought leave in the prescribed manner, the translation of the Legal Charge was irrelevant to enforcement of absolute charging orders, and the applications were frivolous; accordingly both summonses were vacated and costs awarded to the plaintiffs to be paid immediately and summarily assessed.
2 Jul 2020

朱賽金對 PIZZAEXPRESS (HONG KONG) LTD

Citation

[2020] HKDC 420
Court

District Court
Case number

DCPI2731/2018

Leave to appeal was refused on all grounds because the contested affidavit contained no substantive material beyond annexed documents already before the court, the trial‑bundle update (including Chinese translations) was a legitimate case management measure benefitting the plaintiff, and there was no reasonable prospect of success or other compelling reason to grant leave; the costs orders made below are upheld and the plaintiff must pay the defendant's specified costs.