Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Balance of prejudice

Legal area

Court

20 Feb 2006

GRAND PACIFIC EQUITY LTD v. R.S.H. SPORTS (HK) LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

GRAND PACIFIC EQUITY LTD v. R.S.H. SPORTS (HK) LTD AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA4713/2003

The court set aside Master Kwan's order because the plaintiff failed stage one: it did not demonstrate a good reason for the substantial delays in seeking leave to serve out and in responding to queries; unexplained delay precludes extension of the writ even if the plaintiff would have been able to issue a fresh writ within the limitation period.
3 Mar 1994

HO CHING CHEONG and Others v. THE BEIJING TRUST INVESTMENT CORPORATION OF THE PEOPLE\'S CONSTRUCTION BANK OF CHINA Others

Citation

HO CHING CHEONG and Others v. THE BEIJING TRUST INVESTMENT CORPORATION OF THE PEOPLE\'S CONSTRUCTION BANK OF CHINA Others
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP425/1994

The Court vacated the imminent trial dates and refixed trial for 10 October 1994 because the short time before 14 March made it impossible for defendants, given the Mareva injunctions and their asserted need to raise funds, to prepare a fair defence; consequently the parts of the judge's orders that adjourned to trial the defendants' applications to discharge the Mareva injunctions were set aside to permit defendants to renew those applications in light of the material change in circumstances.
3 Mar 1994

HO CHING CHEONG and Others v. THE BEIJING TRUST INVESTMENT CORPORATION OF THE PEOPLE\'S CONSTRUCTION BANK OF CHINA Others

Citation

HO CHING CHEONG and Others v. THE BEIJING TRUST INVESTMENT CORPORATION OF THE PEOPLE\'S CONSTRUCTION BANK OF CHINA Others
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV34/1994

The Court held the March trial dates were vacated and refixed to 10 October 1994 because the defendants lacked sufficient time to prepare and the balance of prejudice favoured adjournment; the parts of the judge's orders adjourning the defendants' applications to discharge Mareva injunctions to the trial were set aside so the defendants could apply afresh given the material change in circumstances.
3 Mar 1994

HO CHING CHEONG and Others v. THE BEIJING TRUST INVESTMENT CORPORATION OF THE PEOPLE\'S CONSTRUCTION BANK OF CHINA Others

Citation

HO CHING CHEONG and Others v. THE BEIJING TRUST INVESTMENT CORPORATION OF THE PEOPLE\'S CONSTRUCTION BANK OF CHINA Others
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP426/1994

The Court vacated the March trial dates and refixed trial to commence 10 October 1994 because, on the evidence and in all the circumstances, the defendants could not be ready to try the actions in mid‑March and the balance of prejudice favored adjournment to secure a fair trial; further, parts of the judge's orders that adjourned the defendants' applications to discharge the Mareva injunctions were set aside because a substantial delay constituted a material change in circumstances and defendants must be free to apply afresh to discharge or vary the injunctions.

Hong Kong Case Law

GRAND PACIFIC EQUITY LTD v. R.S.H. SPORTS (HK) LTD AND OTHERS

HO CHING CHEONG and Others v. THE BEIJING TRUST INVESTMENT CORPORATION OF THE PEOPLE\'S CONSTRUCTION BANK OF CHINA Others

HO CHING CHEONG and Others v. THE BEIJING TRUST INVESTMENT CORPORATION OF THE PEOPLE\'S CONSTRUCTION BANK OF CHINA Others

HO CHING CHEONG and Others v. THE BEIJING TRUST INVESTMENT CORPORATION OF THE PEOPLE\'S CONSTRUCTION BANK OF CHINA Others