ASM ASSEMBLY AUTOMATION LTD AND ANOTHER v. CHAN LO KWAN AND ANOTHER

ASM ASSEMBLY AUTOMATION LTD AND ANOTHER v. CHAN LO KWAN AND ANOTHER

Although the plaintiffs' post-writ delay (May 2001–June 2004) was inordinate and inexcusable, the defendants failed to prove that the delay caused serious prejudice or created a substantial risk that a fair trial is impossible; accordingly the court exercised its discretion to dismiss the defendants' application and not to strike out the action.

Citation
ASM ASSEMBLY AUTOMATION LTD AND ANOTHER v. CHAN LO KWAN AND ANOTHER
Parties
1st Plaintiff: ASM Assembly Automation Ltd; 2nd Plaintiff: ASM Technology Singapore Pte Ltd; 1st Defendant: Chan Lo Kwan; 2nd Defendant: Intra-Tech Mechatronics Ltd
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
21 October 2005
Case Number
HCA7622/1999
Procedural Posture
Civil Action (commercial/intellectual Property Dispute) / Application to Dismiss for Want of Prosecution (strike Out Application Under Inherent Jurisdiction)
Outcome
application dismissed; action not struck out
Legal Topics
Delay, Want of Prosecution, Strike Out, Confidential Information, Breach of Fiduciary Duty, Copyright, Abuse of Process, Prejudice, Fair Trial
Source Language
EN
Civil Procedure Contract Law Confidential Information Law Intellectual Property Law Equity (fiduciary Duties) Delay Want of Prosecution Strike Out +6 more

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 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

ASM Assembly Automation Ltd

1st Plaintiff

ASM Technology Singapore Pte Ltd

2nd Plaintiff

Chan Lo Kwan

1st Defendant

Intra-Tech Mechatronics Ltd

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Action (commercial/intellectual Property Dispute) / Application to Dismiss for Want of Prosecution (strike Out Application Under Inherent Jurisdiction)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiffs committed inordinate and inexcusable delay in prosecuting the action
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiffs' delay caused serious prejudice to the defendants
  3. 3 Whether the delay gives rise to a substantial risk that a fair trial is not possible

Ratio Decidendi

Although the plaintiffs' post-writ delay (May 2001–June 2004) was inordinate and inexcusable, the defendants failed to prove that the delay caused serious prejudice or created a substantial risk that a fair trial is impossible; accordingly the court exercised its discretion to dismiss the defendants' application and not to strike out the action.

Court Disposition

application dismissed; action not struck out

Orders

  • Application dismissed
  • Costs (nisi at first instance) to the plaintiffs