Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Adjournment/stay

Legal area

Court

26 Jan 2023

BUER GUDE v. CHEN KEEN

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 232
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1554/2021

Given the Intervener's existing proprietary injunction and the Restraint Order and the pending proceedings in HCA 2218 that will determine beneficial ownership, the fair and efficient course is to stay/adjourn the Plaintiff's application for a charging order absolute until HCA 2218 is determined; indemnity costs were ordered against the Plaintiff for costs incurred after 29 August 2022.
31 Jan 2022

朱賽金對 PIZZAEXPRESS (HONG KONG) LTD

Citation

[2022] HKDC 61
Court

District Court
Case number

DCPI2731/2018

The court found the hearing officers' case management orders and the adjournment were legally and procedurally sound, the plaintiff failed to demonstrate any legal error or any actual or apparent bias to justify recusal or a stay, the appeals and the December 15 summons were dismissed, and the plaintiff was ordered to pay the defendant's costs with a specified timetable for filing a simple bill and any opposition; failure to file opposition within the time permitted will result in summary assessment of the simple bill.
24 Mar 2015

RE LI, CHUNG YAN HILDA

Citation

RE LI, CHUNG YAN HILDA
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCB8025/2013

Debtors failed to establish a bona fide defence on substantial grounds and failed to show ability or reasonable prospect of being able to pay the debt; the bank, holding a third‑party government guarantee, remains entitled to pursue the guarantors and is not a secured creditor under the Ordinance, therefore bankruptcy orders (order nisi) were granted against the debtors and the petitions were not adjourned further.
24 Mar 2015

RE MANN, KEVIN PATRICK

Citation

RE MANN, KEVIN PATRICK
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCB8023/2013

The bank was entitled to the usual bankruptcy order because the statutory demands were not complied with, the Bank proved the debt, the debtors failed to demonstrate a bona fide defence on substantial grounds or that the Australian litigation offered a realistic timetable or prospect to repay the Bank, and the government guarantee did not make the Bank a secured creditor nor obligate it to pursue the government first; therefore adjournment or dismissal was refused and bankruptcy orders made.
12 Aug 2005

YUEN OI YEE, LISA v. CHIU WING WAH, WILSON

Citation

YUEN OI YEE, LISA v. CHIU WING WAH, WILSON
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ7080/2003

The court refused the adjournment/stay and dismissed the application for leave to appeal out of time because it was unlikely that trial of HCA509/2004 would proceed or, if it did, would yield admissible evidence to assist the plaintiff; ICAC documents were subject to the same privilege/immunity as EOC documents and thus not usable; and the plaintiff demonstrated no real prospect of success such that her claims were frivolous, vexatious and an abuse of process.
16 Feb 2005

WANG DIN SHIN v. NINA KUNG

Citation

WANG DIN SHIN v. NINA KUNG
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAP8/1999

Recusal was refused because the application was belated, unsupported by evidence and materially different from the 2001 circumstances; the adjournment/stay was dismissed because the questionnaires are a legitimate exercise of the Administrators' duty to identify and preserve estate assets and to assist estate duty determination; costs were awarded against the defendant, including indemnity costs for the improper recusal application; the questionnaire summons was adjourned to allow the defendant to file evidence but with costs against her.
20 Aug 2004

WANG DIN SHIN v. NINA KUNG

Citation

WANG DIN SHIN v. NINA KUNG
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAP8/1999

Adjourn the defendant's removal application until final determination of the probate proceedings and appeals because proceeding now would prejudice the due administration of the estate, waste estate resources and likely be moot; the defendant may only seek removal in her capacity as a beneficiary or potential beneficiary and not to protect separate shareholder interests which are adverse to the estate; therefore paragraphs 2–5 directions unnecessary and adjournment with costs ordered.
26 Jul 2004

THE JOINT AND SEVERAL LIQUIDATORS OF THE NEW CHINA HONG KONG GROUP LTD AND OTHERS v. ERNST & YOUNG (A FIRM) AND OTHERS

Citation

THE JOINT AND SEVERAL LIQUIDATORS OF THE NEW CHINA HONG KONG GROUP LTD AND OTHERS v. ERNST & YOUNG (A FIRM) AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP3891/2002

The court held there was no proper basis to adjourn the scheduled oral examinations pending determination of the later originating summons; liquidators are not precluded from issuing a fresh originating summons for further discovery and the respondents cited no authority to the contrary. The interlocutory appeal was dismissed and costs were awarded to the liquidators.
11 Mar 2003

YIP LAI FONG AND ANOTHER v. SIN TUNG HING AND OTHERS

Citation

YIP LAI FONG AND ANOTHER v. SIN TUNG HING AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP2423/2002

The court refused to appoint a receiver immediately because the Petitioners failed to prove sufficient urgency given the matters had been known since the previous summer and proper notice had not been given; the court held it would be unfair to appoint a receiver without affording Respondents an opportunity to file evidence and without the 2nd Petitioner or Official Receiver being properly involved, and therefore adjourned the receiver application to allow expedited evidence and directions and refused to proceed with preliminary issues binding the 2nd Petitioner until his position was clarifi…
4 Jul 2000

SAMUEL LEE TAK YEE v. CHEN PARK KUEN AND OTHERS

Citation

SAMUEL LEE TAK YEE v. CHEN PARK KUEN AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA9928/1996

The action was not ready for trial because new and material evidence affecting the factual basis of the resulting trust claim had emerged and further discovery was necessary; moreover, trying the case now risked making findings that would overlap and potentially conflict with pending winding up, caveat and removal proceedings and might not bind the estate or future executors, therefore the proper course was to adjourn the trial until those proceedings are concluded and to make directions for further pleadings and discovery.