Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Case management and costs

Legal area

Court

28 Sept 2023

CHINA MINSHENG BANKING CORP LTD HONG KONG BRANCH v. TOP POWER ENTERPRISES LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 2469
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA265/2020

Expert valuation was not relevant or necessary because the central issues were existence of an oral agreement and satisfaction of a condition precedent—questions of factual credibility and subjective belief which could be resolved from pleadings and witness statements; the proposed valuation was of limited and unverifiable probative value, disproportionate in cost and delay, and therefore the Master correctly refused the expert directions and the appeal is dismissed.
26 Jun 2018

FISCALINK INTERNATIONAL LTD AND ANOTHER v.U YU SUM ALEX AND OTHERS

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 1293
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA5913/1997

The plaintiffs' 20-year delay was inordinate and inexcusable, caused prejudice by loss of witness memory making a fair trial substantially at risk, and was accompanied by contumelious conduct and wholesale disregard of prior court warnings; accordingly their claims as pleaded against the defendants before the court amounted to abuse of process and were justly struck out and the proposed amendment refused.
17 May 2018

LAU WING YAN AND OTHERS v. CHU KONG AND OTHERS

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 1115
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2562/2014

Registrar refused defendants leave to amend because defendants breached a prior court order and offered no explanation for delay, failed to plead necessary particulars so experts could not substitute for pleadings, and the proposed market/trade practice matters were irrelevant given the parties' special (non arm’s‑length) relationship; the proposed mitigation plea was bound to fail as the 4th plaintiff lacked authority to sell the vessel; plaintiffs' application for expert evidence was allowed as drafted.
30 May 2016

LOK WAI YEE v. MAN KOON HUNG

Citation

LOK WAI YEE v. MAN KOON HUNG
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1181/2014

The court granted leave to amend the Defence and to file and rely on the late witness statement because (1) the proposed Balfour-type defence was arguable and necessary for a fair determination of the central issues, (2) the Chow unless order did not operate as an absolute automatic bar to leave and the proper exercise was to consider leave to adduce evidence, (3) prejudice to the plaintiff from delay could be mitigated by costs and rigorous case management measures including vacating and re-fixing trial and requiring specified disclosures, and (4) exceptional case-specific circumstances just…
12 Feb 2015

FOK CHUN YUE BENJAMIN v. FOK CHUN WAN IAN AND OTHERS

Citation

FOK CHUN YUE BENJAMIN v. FOK CHUN WAN IAN AND OTHERS
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV13/2014

The judge erred in making a final summary determination of the construction of Clause 19(e) because there were serious, triable factual disputes central to the contextual background necessary for construction (including allegations of non‑disclosure, nominee arrangements and competing claims to beneficial ownership). The appropriate exercise of discretion was to set aside the stay order of 3 January 2014 and instead order a stay of the action pending fresh legal proceedings concerning the Settlement Agreement to be filed within 28 days, allowing the substantive disputes to be resolved in full…
16 Aug 2013

CHAN SHIU CHONG v. DIRECTOR OF LANDS

Citation

CHAN SHIU CHONG v. DIRECTOR OF LANDS
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDLR2/2012

The application to consolidate was dismissed because the Director's proposal to try one case first and stay the others better served proportionality and efficiency: the properties differ in location and character, the applicants can present collective evidence in the first trial, the approach is likely to reduce costs and Tribunal resource use, and findings in the first trial can guide or shorten subsequent proceedings; accordingly consolidation was refused and the other cases were to be stayed pending the trial of the first case.
16 Aug 2013

TSE SUI LUN v. DIRECTOR OF LANDS

Citation

TSE SUI LUN v. DIRECTOR OF LANDS
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDLR3/2012

Consolidation was refused because the Director's proposal to try one case first and stay the others better served efficient case management given differences in location and character of the properties, the applicants could present cumulative evidence at the first trial, each applicant bears the burden to prove redevelopment likelihood individually, and the proposed course would likely save costs and tribunal resources; accordingly the consolidation summonses were dismissed and the parties ordered to select one case for trial first with the remainder stayed.
15 Jul 2013

K & L GATES v. NAVIN KUMAR AGGARWAL AND OTHERS

Citation

K & L GATES v. NAVIN KUMAR AGGARWAL AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1061/2011

The court exercised its discretion to consolidate because both actions plainly raised common questions of law and fact and the rights to relief in both arose from the same alleged wrongdoing of D1; the claims against Golden Future and Melco Crown relied on the same factual matrix and evidence and consolidation promoted effective case management and avoided duplication and potential double recovery, and the opposition based on alleged delay was insufficient to outweigh those considerations.
21 Nov 2011

DAIMLER AG (FORMERLY MERCEDES-BENZ AQ) v. LEIDUCK, HERBERT HEINZ HORST AND ANOTHER

Citation

DAIMLER AG (FORMERLY MERCEDES-BENZ AQ) v. LEIDUCK, HERBERT HEINZ HORST AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA4089/1994

The Court refused the Plaintiff's application to overturn the existing directions because there was no material change in circumstances, the Plaintiff delayed in bringing the application and had taken advantage of the directions to inspect the new affidavits; pleadings and general discovery are not required at this stage; expert directions and cross-examination directions are premature and should await the Plaintiff's affidavit in opposition; the original directions stand subject to limited variations; costs ordered to Defendants in amount specified.
29 Jan 2010

CHOK YICK INTERIOR DESIGN & ENGINEERING CO. LTD. v. FORTUNE WORLD ENTERPRISES LTD. AND ANOTHER

Citation

CHOK YICK INTERIOR DESIGN & ENGINEERING CO. LTD. v. FORTUNE WORLD ENTERPRISES LTD. AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA280/2009

The court exercised its inherent jurisdiction and case management powers to grant a discretionary stay and refer the consolidated proceedings to arbitration: a claimant's prior commencement of proceedings does not automatically waive an arbitration agreement and is not a bar to a stay where arbitration is the appropriate forum for the issues.