ANGELA CHEN v. WAI WAI CHEN

CACV 182/2026 and CACV 313/2024, [2026] HKCA 1062

On Appeal From [2024] HKCFI 962 and [2024] HKCFI 1837

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 182 OF 2026

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAP NO 10 OF 2020)

_______________

_______________

_______________

and

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 313 OF 2024

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAP NO 10 OF 2020)

_______________

_______________

_______________

(heard together)

_______________

D E C I S I O N

_______________

Hon Au JA (giving the Decision of the Court):

1.  Relevant to these present applications, this Court by its order dated 12 May 2026 disallowed part of the appeal in CACV 313/2024 (“the 313 Order”) and dismissed the appeal in CACV 182/2026 (“the 182 Order”), with reasons to be handed down in due course.

2.  By way of two Summonses[1] respectively taken out by Vivien (the defendant in both appeals) under CACV 313/2024 and CACV 182/2025, she now applies to extend the time (a) for her to file a Notice of Motion to apply for leave to appeal the 313 Order and the 182 Order respectively to 28 days from the date of this court handing down the reasons for those orders, (b) for her to give notice of intended application accordingly.

3.  These applications are opposed by Angela (the plaintiff in both appeals) for the reasons stated in her written submissions[2], which are in gist that:

(1)  This court may well hand down its reasons before the original time for Vivien to file her Notices of Motion expires.

(2)  Notification of intention to appeal (“Notification”) does not require any grounds to be stated and hence it is incorrect for Vivien to say that she needs to see the reasons first before giving her Notification.

(3)  It is an overstatement to suggest that Vivien can form a view as to whether to appeal, and if so, on what grounds only upon having sight of the reasons. Given the submissions already advanced in the Court of First Instance and the appeals, the contours of the dispute arising from those arguments are clear, and it must also be obvious to Vivien whether questions of general or public importance are involved in those disputes and arguments.

(4)  Alternatively, even if time is to be extended, given the importance of keeping the trial dates in February next year, the more preferrable approach is:

(a)  The parties shall give the Notification within the time limit, so that the court and the other party know whether they should expect a leave to appeal application in respect of each of the appeals. This would in turn inform the court on how to deploy its (limited) resources, including what the focus of the reasons should be, and whether there is urgency in the matter.

(b)  The parties shall file the Notice of Motion within the time limit, so that the court and the other party can already begin to give thoughts to the merits of the proposed grounds and the next steps (eg, whether the default timetable in PD 2.1 should be adjusted).

(c)  If need be, leave can be sought for amending any Notice of Motion filed after reasons are handed down. If and when such an application is to be made, the court will no doubt bear in mind all relevant considerations at the time when it deals with such an application.

4.  With respect, we are of view that the time extension as sought should be granted in the circumstances of this case, as we agree with the following submissions made by Vivien’s counsel:

(1)  To avoid a second adjournment of the trial, it is indeed more desirable to allow Vivien and her legal team to make an informed decision on whether to appeal (and if so, on what grounds). Such informed decision is more likely to be achieved by her legal team after considering what reasons the court has found against Vivien for the 313 Order and the 182 Order[3].

(2)  It would therefore be more practical and time and costs saving (and therefore more desirable) not to require Vivien to now file the Notices of Motion in the dark and seek to amend them later after seeing the reasons. This is particularly so as there could be different reasons for the court to find against Vivien in relation to the various arguments that were advanced in the appeals, which may or may not engage GPI points[4].

5.  In the premises, we would allow the applications and grant the orders as sought respectively under the Summonses with costs reserved.