Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Computation of time

Legal area

Court

26 Aug 2025

SUNWAR CHET KUMAR v. AWIS MUHAMMAD AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2025] HKDC 1391
Court

District Court
Case number

DCPI1202/2024

The 7-day statutory notice period in s 10(2)(a) Cap 272 is computed by reference to s 71 Cap 1, not Order 3 r 2(5) RDC, so the deadline was 26 April 2024; the Plaintiff failed to prove timely service of the notice within that period (ordinary post on 25 April 2024 is deemed delivered on 27 April 2024); independently, the insurer had obtained a valid Avoidance Declaration under s 10(3) Cap 272 prior to commencement of proceedings, which extinguished its duty under s 10(1); accordingly the 2nd Defendant is not a proper or necessary party and must cease to be a party.
29 Apr 2025

MUHAMMAD QASIM v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 1722
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL93/2020

The summons is dismissed because the applicant failed to identify any arguable ground of appeal or any error of law in the refusal of leave; the Board's factual findings were properly reached and there is no reasonable prospect of success, so no extension of time to appeal is granted despite the short delay.
25 Feb 2010

HKSAR v. NACUA HAZEL CABIGAS

Citation

HKSAR v. NACUA HAZEL CABIGAS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA1019/2009

The notice under s.11 Cap.115 stipulated a fixed date for departure and did not create a period requiring computation; s.71(1) Cap.1 governs computation of time and therefore did not apply, so the appellant had to leave on or before 9 August and was rightly convicted for overstaying.
31 Jul 2009

HKSAR v. MAXIM’S CATERERS LTD

Citation

HKSAR v. MAXIM’S CATERERS LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA95/2009

The six‑month period in s.26 of the Magistrates Ordinance is computed excluding the day of the offence; applying that rule the information was not laid out of time and the magistrate erred in dismissing it.
17 May 2004

FAR EAST DRUG (B.V.I.) CO LTD v. FIRST PACIFIC CO LTD

Citation

FAR EAST DRUG (B.V.I.) CO LTD v. FIRST PACIFIC CO LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCL41/2003

The contractual phrase 'months' in Clause 8(D) is to be read as calendar months measured as 'clear' or 'full' months rather than by the corresponding date rule or as lunar months; the clause is a time‑barring provision for the defendant's benefit and should be construed to give as much time as the language admits. Applying that construction the plaintiff's letter dated 6 June 2003 was within the contractual deadline and the claim is not time‑barred.
2 Jun 2000

RE: LI TAT KONG and EX PARTE: OFFICIAL RECEIVER

Citation

RE: LI TAT KONG and EX PARTE: OFFICIAL RECEIVER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCB741/1995

The court held that the four‑year relevant period commenced on the adjudication date (22 November 1995) and, because 21 November 1999 fell on a Sunday, the period did not expire until 22 November 1999; the omission on 22 November 1999 of any interim order suspending discharge was an accidental slip correctable under Order 20 r.11; the creditor was entitled to be heard despite not issuing its own summons because no substantial prejudice to the bankrupt resulted and the trustee had properly applied; on the merits the bankrupt had failed to co‑operate, concealed accounts and assets and discharge…
1 Nov 1985

RE WONG MIN FOOK

Citation

RE WONG MIN FOOK
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCB448/1985

If the effective date of a bankruptcy notice can be ascertained from the notice as served, an incorrect stated expiry date is a formal defect and may be amended (even if amendment is applied for after the three month period); if service was by post and the petition fails to state the date when service is deemed effective so that the act of bankruptcy date cannot be calculated, the defect is substantive and amendment will not cure the petition once the three month period has expired.
1 Nov 1985

RE YIP KIT WAH

Citation

RE YIP KIT WAH
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCB416/1985

Amendments correcting dates in bankruptcy petitions are permissible where the correct date of expiry can be calculated from the petition (defect is formal); where the petition as drafted does not permit calculation (for example where service was by post and the petition fails to state the deemed date), the petition is defective and, if the three-month period has expired, must be dismissed. Amendments are allowed where made within the three-month period to cure defects that enable calculation of the expiry date.
13 Nov 1984

CHEUNG LEE WAREHOUSE & TRANSPORTATION LTD v. BERTHIER GODOWN LTD

Citation

CHEUNG LEE WAREHOUSE & TRANSPORTATION LTD v. BERTHIER GODOWN LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP2827/1984

Although the appellant's solicitors delayed without adequate special circumstances, the Court exercised its discretion to extend the time for service of the Notice of Appeal in order to protect the blameless client's interest, while imposing costs on the appellant and ordering those costs to be paid personally by the appellant's solicitors.