Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Civil justice reform (cjr)

Legal area

Court

4 Mar 2014

COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE v. LI & FUNG (TRADING) LTD

Citation

COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE v. LI & FUNG (TRADING) LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCIA3/2010

LFT's delay in commencing taxation (effectively seven months beyond the three-month period after expiry of the appeal window) was undue; settlement negotiations on costs were not sufficiently evidenced; however, given the Commissioner had not invoked r22(3) and thereby failed to assist the court as required by the CJR, a global percentage deduction was inappropriate. The appropriate sanction was to disallow interest on the taxed costs for a limited period of five months (15 July 2012 to 15 December 2012) for each bill.
16 May 2013

CHINA NONFERROUS METALS (HONG KONG) FINANCE CO LTD (In Liquidation) AND ANOTHER v. SOUTH-EAST ASIA INVESTMENT HOLDING CO LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

CHINA NONFERROUS METALS (HONG KONG) FINANCE CO LTD (In Liquidation) AND ANOTHER v. SOUTH-EAST ASIA INVESTMENT HOLDING CO LTD AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV253/2012

The Court of Appeal held the judge did not err in refusing to strike out the action. Although there was inordinate and inexcusable delay, the judge properly exercised her discretion by assessing prejudice and the totality of circumstances (winding up, subsequent investigations, counsel advice, reactivation and security for costs). Prejudice sufficient to render a fair trial impossible was not established and striking out (a draconian remedy) was not justified; therefore the appeal was dismissed.
6 May 2013

BUILDTECH LTD v. HUNG WAN CONSTRUCTION CO LTD

Citation

BUILDTECH LTD v. HUNG WAN CONSTRUCTION CO LTD
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ1385/2008

The judge exercised the court's discretion afresh and found that where parties had genuinely engaged in settlement discussions prior to the due date and no milestone or hearing date would be affected, a short post-due extension could be granted. The defendant was granted the extension on strict terms: file and serve the Application within three days or be debarred; interest on taxed costs was disallowed for the period of undue delay (12 December 2012 to filing date); defendant to pay plaintiff's costs for the extension application. The court balanced the objectives of the CJR, the content of…
7 Mar 2013

TANG HING KWONG AND ANOTHER v. JOHN DAVID ANDREW IP AND ANOTHER

Citation

TANG HING KWONG AND ANOTHER v. JOHN DAVID ANDREW IP AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA7927/2000

Although the delay was inordinate and inexcusable, the defendants failed to prove serious prejudice sufficient to make a fair trial impossible or to demonstrate an abuse of process (warehousing) that would justify striking out; striking out is an ultimate remedy under the CJR and, on the facts, the appropriate order was to restore the actions and proceed under strict case management rather than dismissal.
27 Jun 2011

MA KWOK YEE v. VICTORY MUTUAL LTD

Citation

MA KWOK YEE v. VICTORY MUTUAL LTD
Court

District Court
Case number

DCEC699/2010

Leave was granted to adduce a joint psychiatric expert report because the psychiatric evidence is relevant and likely to assist the court in determining loss of earning capacity and fitness to return to pre-accident employment; orthopaedic experts had not completed all matters, a Medical Assessment Board psychiatric assessment was pending, and allowing the psychiatric report would not delay the case.
20 May 2011

KWOK CHIN WING v. 21 HOLDINGS LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

KWOK CHIN WING v. 21 HOLDINGS LTD AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2332/2004

The 29 December 2009 letter did not comply with the mandatory form required by O 22 r 5(7) and therefore was not a sanctioned offer; it was, however, a valid Calderbank offer, and because the judgment including interest ($77,689,953) exceeded that offer ($72,000,000) the plaintiff was entitled to costs on a party and party basis; plaintiff was entitled to contractual interest at the agreed prime rates to judgment and judgment interest thereafter, but was not entitled to enhanced interest or indemnity costs; the order nisi was made absolute accordingly.
12 Nov 2010

HARVEST TOP DEVELOPMENT LTD v. THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF HARBOUR VIEW GARDEN AND ANOTHER

Citation

HARVEST TOP DEVELOPMENT LTD v. THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF HARBOUR VIEW GARDEN AND ANOTHER
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDBM145/2008

The Applicant had materially changed its position by introducing new issues and confusing the previously confirmed statement of issues (Chan-1) without compelling explanation; given the duty of counsel to assist the court under the CJR and the prejudice to Respondents, the Tribunal refused the Applicant leave to retract and ordered that Chan-1 shall stand as the Applicant's list of issues; costs of and occasioned by the retraction were to be awarded against the Applicant and were summarily assessed and ordered paid forthwith.
25 Aug 2010

NEWBOND PROPERTIES LTD v. MATCH POWER INVESTMENT LTD

Citation

NEWBOND PROPERTIES LTD v. MATCH POWER INVESTMENT LTD
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ128/2007

Leave to appeal was refused because there was no reasonable prospect of success: the plaintiff's delay was inordinate and inexcusable, the conduct amounted to an abuse of process by warehousing the claim, the delay caused substantial risk of serious prejudice to the defendant's ability to defend, striking out and dismissal were within the court's discretion, and the proposed late affirmation would not have altered those conclusions.
14 Jul 2009

CHANG MAN SZE v. CHAN SIU WAI AND ANOTHER

Citation

CHANG MAN SZE v. CHAN SIU WAI AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCPI290/2007

Leave to adduce the psychiatric and cosmetic surgery reports was refused because, on their face, Dr Chiu's report added little beyond the government psychiatrist's report and was unnecessary, and Dr Chow's report was unnecessary because the new scars and their causation were documented, suggested treatments were optional and the complaint of itchiness was a new, unpleaded issue; the Summons paragraphs 1 and 2 were dismissed with costs.