XU YANPING v. HIBBERD ROBIN SIDNEY

HCA 492/2026

[2026] HKCFI 5199

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

ACTION NO 492 OF 2026

________________________

BETWEEN

________________________

________________________

DECISION

________________________

1.  On 3 September 2026, the plaintiff’s summons seeking summary judgment in this matter came before me. The plaintiff appeared in person, and the defendant was represented by Mr Alvin Cheung.

2.  At the said hearing I made case management directions for the further hearing of the summary judgment summons including the filing of evidence in response. I was also informed by Mr Cheung that the defendant wished to take out a summons seeking to strike out the proceedings. I made directions for the time within which such a summons should be taken out and the filing of evidence in respect of such summons.

3.  By summons dated 3 September 2026 (the “Appeal Summons”), the plaintiff seeks leave to appeal from the orders that I made. By summons dated 4 September 2026 (the “Recusal Summons”) the plaintiff seeks an order that I recuse and withdraw myself from all further case management, interlocutory and substantive hearings in this action, on the grounds of apparent bias, and that the case be re-allocated to another independent Judge of the Court of First Instance.

4.  I made a direction that the Appeal Summons and the Recusal Summons be disposed of on paper.

5.  I considered the plaintiff’s written submissions in support, and indicated that it was unnecessary for the defendant to respond to those submissions.

6.  Having considered these matters, I dismiss both the Appeal Summons and the Recusal Summons.

The Appeal Summons

7.  The directions that I made on 3 September 2026 related only to case management. I did not grant to the defendant leave to issue a strike-out summons, and the defendant does not need leave of the court to issue such a summons. Any submissions which the plaintiff may wish to make that the strike-out summons is barred by the principle in Henderson v. Henderson, or otherwise on the merits of the summons, may be taken at the substantive hearing of the strike-out summons.

8.  As to the costs order made, this was on the basis that the defendant’s solicitors had proposed to the plaintiff in writing reasonable directions to be made at the hearing on 3 September 2026, to which the plaintiff did not respond, resulting in the costs of the hearing being unnecessarily incurred.

9.  I consider that both aspects referred to above are discretionary matters with which the Court of Appeal is unlikely to interfere.

10.  I have considered the matters raised in the plaintiff’s Skeleton Submissions in support, certain of which points were not raised at the hearing before me. In short, I do not consider that any of them has arguable merit.

11.  Those are the reasons for my dismissal of the Appeal Summons.

The Recusal Summons

12.  The Recusal Summons seems to be based at least in part on a misapprehension that these proceedings have or may have been generally “allocated” to me for future hearings, which is not the case.

13.  In any event, I have considered plaintiff’s Skeleton Submissions in support, which in essence pray in aid various mistakes of law and procedure said to have been made at the directions hearing, and the absence of reasoning on certain points. In short, I do not consider that these provide an arguable basis for an allegation of actual or apparent bias.

14.  Those are my reasons for dismissing the Recusal Summons.