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.
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
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether delay after service of documents was inordinate
- 2 Whether the delay was inexcusable
- 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
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment