Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Adjournment discretion

Legal area

Court

17 Jun 2019

ASARE ERNEST OWUSU v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD /NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE AND ANOTHER [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 1512
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL372/2018

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to identify any arguable legal error or procedural unfairness in the Director's and Board's decisions; the Board's adverse credibility findings and refusal to grant further adjournment were within its discretion, and the Director's finding that internal relocation in Ghana was reasonable was supported by evidence, such that there was no realistic prospect of success on judicial review.
23 May 2014

MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS CREDIT CO LLC (formerly known as MOTOROLA CREDIT CORPORATION) v. KEMAL UZAN AND OTHERS

Citation

MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS CREDIT CO LLC (formerly known as MOTOROLA CREDIT CORPORATION) v. KEMAL UZAN AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2232/2013

The discharge summons was dismissed because the defendants failed to establish exceptional circumstances to justify an adjournment or discharge: they had adequate notice, a history of legal representation and known litigation funding requirements, failed to file required affidavits, and offered only speculative, hearsay explanations for non‑appearance which would unjustifiably waste court resources and undermine the CJR; the court therefore properly exercised its discretion to refuse the adjournment and dismiss the application with costs.
8 Apr 2013

RE GRAND CHINA SHIPPING (HONG KONG) CO LTD

Citation

RE GRAND CHINA SHIPPING (HONG KONG) CO LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCW485/2012

The audited accounts and unpaid arbitration award established on the face of the evidence that the company was insolvent; no credible restructuring proposal or timely evidence was produced and no good reason was given to adjourn; accordingly the court refused to adjourn and made the winding-up order.
26 May 2010

HKSAR v. SO WUI CHUNG

Citation

HKSAR v. SO WUI CHUNG
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA660/2009

The magistrate misapplied his discretion by refusing the adjournment when the appellant had taken reasonable steps to secure representation, was young with no convictions, the charge was serious, and delay was not attributable to him; accordingly the conviction and the detention order were quashed and no retrial was ordered due to prejudice and delay.
24 Dec 2003

HKSAR v. LAU SIU FAI

Citation

HKSAR v. LAU SIU FAI
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA349/2003

The magistrate did not abuse his discretion in refusing adjournments; late disclosure did not produce demonstrable prejudice; the magistrate's credibility findings as to PW1 were reasonably open on the evidence; and the appellant's driving constituted a course of conduct meeting the statutory test for dangerous driving under s37(4) RTO, therefore the conviction and sentence are affirmed.
9 Dec 2003

CHAN YEE MAN v. GOLD DRAGON LTD t/a CLUB PARIS

Citation

CHAN YEE MAN v. GOLD DRAGON LTD t/a CLUB PARIS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCLA120/2003

Leave to appeal is granted only on the narrow ground that the Presiding Officer may have failed to consider apparent gaps in continuity of employment shown in specified exhibits; other grounds fail because the Presiding Officer lawfully exercised his discretion in refusing an adjournment, properly weighed the evidence, and complied with the Tribunal's duty to proceed expeditiously.
6 May 2002

Re Choi Yiu Kee Iron Works Ltd.

Citation

Re Choi Yiu Kee Iron Works Ltd.
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCW96/2002

Insufficient credible evidence was presented that the claimed retention monies would be realized in the near term and be available to meet the Labour Tribunal awards and statutory demand; therefore the court concluded the company was unable to pay its debts and made the winding-up order.
3 Feb 2000

BOUGH & CO. v. GOLDSFAME INDUSTRIAL LTD.

Citation

BOUGH & CO. v. GOLDSFAME INDUSTRIAL LTD.
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA15570/1999

The cheque was supported by valuable consideration (payment on account of legal costs); the Master did not err in refusing to adjourn as the parties only agreed procedural directions; an offer to pay into court and unrelated counterclaims do not prevent summary judgment on a dishonoured cheque; therefore the summary judgment for $75,000 stands.
28 May 1998

HKSAR v. Abenir Noel R.

Citation

HKSAR v. Abenir Noel R.
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA132/1998

The appeal was dismissed because the magistrate properly exercised his discretion not to adjourn, the appellant had ample prior opportunity to obtain representation and had caused delay by absconding, and the magistrate's assistance to an unrepresented appellant was adequate and did not render the trial unfair or the conviction unsafe.
17 Feb 1997

R v. TAM KIN WING

Citation

R v. TAM KIN WING
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA1108/1996

The appeal was dismissed because the magistrate gave sufficient assistance to the unrepresented appellant within his duty without improperly conducting the defence, the refusal to adjourn was a valid exercise of discretion given the speculative nature of the proposed witnesses and the appellant's prior opportunities, there was no evidence before the court of the appellant's good character so no direction was required, and there was no basis to treat the oral statement as involuntary; accordingly the appellant was not prejudiced and had a fair trial.