CHU KEUNG FAI AND OTHERS v. YUEN POR AND OTHERS

CHU KEUNG FAI AND OTHERS v. YUEN POR AND OTHERS

Delay by the plaintiffs after receipt of the 3rd Defendant's documents on 3 January 1984 was inordinate and inexcusable, but on the balance of probabilities the prejudice to the 3rd Defendant from missing witnesses and memory lapses was not likely to be seriously prejudicial given the quantity of contemporaneous documentary evidence and availability of another knowledgeable witness (Mr Mak); therefore dismissal of the action against the 3rd Defendant was not justified and the appeal was dismissed with costs.

Citation
CHU KEUNG FAI AND OTHERS v. YUEN POR AND OTHERS
Parties
Co Administrator of the Estates of Lai Pak Chuen and Madam Chu Wah Ying (deceased): Chu Keung Fai; Co Administratrix of the Estates of Lai Pak Chuen and Madam Chu Wah Ying (deceased): Madam Yu Wai Heung; 1st Defendant: Yuen Por; 2nd Defendant: Lai Chak Man; 3rd Defendant: Express Transport and Building Contractors Limited
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
7 February 1986
Case Number
HCA4517/1981
Procedural Posture
Civil Tort Fatal Accidents/personal Injuries / Appeal Against Master's Decision on Summons to Dismiss for Want of Prosecution
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs
Legal Topics
Want of Prosecution, Inordinate and Inexcusable Delay, Prejudice to Fair Trial, Negligence, Fatal Accidents Ordinance Claims
Source Language
EN

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Chu Keung Fai

Co Administrator of the Estates of Lai Pak Chuen and Madam Chu Wah Ying (deceased)

Madam Yu Wai Heung

Co Administratrix of the Estates of Lai Pak Chuen and Madam Chu Wah Ying (deceased)

Yuen Por

1st Defendant

Lai Chak Man

2nd Defendant

Express Transport and Building Contractors Limited

3rd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Tort Fatal Accidents/personal Injuries / Appeal Against Master's Decision on Summons to Dismiss for Want of Prosecution

  1. 1 Whether delay after service of documents was inordinate
  2. 2 Whether the delay was inexcusable
  3. 3 Whether the delay caused substantial risk to a fair trial or serious prejudice to the 3rd Defendant

Ratio Decidendi

Delay by the plaintiffs after receipt of the 3rd Defendant's documents on 3 January 1984 was inordinate and inexcusable, but on the balance of probabilities the prejudice to the 3rd Defendant from missing witnesses and memory lapses was not likely to be seriously prejudicial given the quantity of contemporaneous documentary evidence and availability of another knowledgeable witness (Mr Mak); therefore dismissal of the action against the 3rd Defendant was not justified and the appeal was dismissed with costs.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs