Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Triable issue

Legal area

Court

18 Jun 2025

HAVE RESULT FINANCE LTD v. CHAN HOW CHUNG VICTOR

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 2611
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1382/2023

The court concluded that the defendant failed to raise any believable triable issue on the existence of the alleged 2022 restructuring agreement: the alleged agreement was vague, commercially implausible, unsupported by contemporaneous documentation or credible particulars, and inconsistent with the documentary record of written extensions; accordingly summary determination was appropriate, money judgment as per the plaintiff's account (CSY-21) was granted and an order for vacant possession made; the conversion summons was dismissed.
21 May 2025

LEAD WELL INVESTMENTS LTD v. QUALI-WELL DEVELOPMENT LTD

Citation

[2025] HKCA 457
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP221/2024

The renewed application for leave was dismissed because the defendant had raised a triable issue or arguable defence that a willing purchaser should have accepted the Offer (deduction of HK$460,000 and undertaking), the plaintiff's grounds were not reasonably arguable and therefore the intended appeal had no reasonable prospect of success.
4 Nov 2024

LEAD WELL INVESTMENTS LTD v. QUALI-WELL DEVELOPMENT LTD

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 3099
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1914/2020

The applicant failed to demonstrate any error of law or misapprehension of material fact in the Decision nor that the Decision was plainly wrong; accordingly leave to appeal was refused and costs were awarded to the defendant on a nisi basis.
11 Sept 2023

H&M HENNES & MAURITZ GBC AB v. ZOETOP BUSINESS CO LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 2329
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCIP31/2021

Leave to appeal is granted in respect of the claim against the 1st Defendant because the judge accepted the 1st Defendant's affirmation describing its business as akin to an e-commerce platform but failed to address evidence or argument that the 1st Defendant sold under its own brand and thus may have been the party who first put the alleged infringing goods into circulation; this potential error gives the Plaintiff a reasonable chance of success on appeal. Leave to appeal is refused in respect of the 2nd Defendant. Costs ordered nisi as set out.
20 Jun 2019

POWER SECURITIES CO LTD (formerly known as JUN YANG SECURITIES CO LTD) v. BEST YEAR ENTERPRISES LTD

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 1591
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2851/2017

The application for leave was dismissed because the Defendant failed the first Ladd v Marshall condition by not showing the evidence could not have been obtained with reasonable diligence, and also failed to show the evidence would probably have had an important influence or raised a triable issue to resist summary judgment; accordingly leave is refused and costs awarded to the Plaintiff.
4 Nov 2016

TANG CHI YUEN v. 陳金洪 transliterated as CHAN KAM HUNG AND OTHERS

Citation

TANG CHI YUEN v. 陳金洪 transliterated as CHAN KAM HUNG AND OTHERS
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ674/2016

Leave to appeal was refused on Grounds 1–4 for lacking a reasonable prospect of success; leave was granted only on Ground 5 because the Decision contained an inconsistent pair of orders and there was no stated reason for departing from the usual costs-in-the-cause order when unconditional leave to defend was granted.
18 Nov 2015

LI MINGREN v. QUESTEX DEVELOPMENT INC. AND ANOTHER

Citation

LI MINGREN v. QUESTEX DEVELOPMENT INC. AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV141/2014

The Court allowed the appeal and set aside the summary judgment because the newly adduced bank records and the unexplained round‑robin transfers created real doubts about the plaintiff's case and raised triable issues that could not properly be resolved without pleadings, discovery, inspection of documents and cross‑examination; accordingly the 1st defendant was granted unconditional leave to defend and the matter remitted for directions and further proceedings.
13 Jun 2012

LAW SIU LEUNG v. THE OCCUPIERS AND ANOTHER

Citation

LAW SIU LEUNG v. THE OCCUPIERS AND ANOTHER
Court

District Court
Case number

DCMP3093/2011

The 2nd Defendant failed to demonstrate a realistic prospect of success on appeal because the estoppel defence lacked the necessary elements (clear promise, reliance and detriment), was inconsistent with his conduct and contractual history (including vacating the property and terminating agreements), and thus raised no bona fide triable issue; consequently leave to appeal and a stay of execution were refused and costs nisi awarded to the plaintiff.
4 May 2012

LAND PERFECT LTD v. YAU CHUN CHEONG

Citation

LAND PERFECT LTD v. YAU CHUN CHEONG
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ4408/2011

Summary judgment was refused because the defendant has raised triable issues as to whether his cultivation constituted factual possession and animus possidendi; those factual and credibility matters require full trial and cross-examination and cannot be resolved on the papers.
12 Apr 2012

UES INTERNATIONAL (HK) LTD v. MARITIMA MARUBA SA

Citation

UES INTERNATIONAL (HK) LTD v. MARITIMA MARUBA SA
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA632/2011

Because the assignment documents were not produced and the notice and surrounding documents gave rise to legitimate ambiguity as to whether the assignments were absolute or security only, there are triable issues preventing summary judgment; accordingly unconditional leave to defend was granted and judgment was refused at summary stage.