Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Costs and delay

Legal area

Court

13 Aug 2021

CHAN KAM PUI AND YANG WEI, THE ADMINISTRATORS OF THE ESTATE OF YANG FENG, DECEASED v. DR LAM MAN HO AND OTHERS

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 2027
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCPI128/2013

Leave to amend was refused because the pleaded quantification equating the deceased’s lost entrepreneurial/management services to the full (or discounted) rental income lacks any logical or legal basis and, as pleaded, effectively attempts to recover rental income derived from assets that the dependants have inherited, contrary to established authority; such pleaded claims are bound to fail and are therefore disallowed.
12 Sept 2008

DAVID KONG v. PINE GROWTH MANUFACTURING CO LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

DAVID KONG v. PINE GROWTH MANUFACTURING CO LTD AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCW321/2006

Court directed that Grant Thornton be offered the appointment on terms identical to the Baker Tilley quotation (ie the capped fee and disbursement terms); if Grant Thornton decline those terms the appointment should be offered to Baker Tilley; parties must cooperate to allow inspection and provision of soft copies (with reasonable charges) and jointly approach the bank to determine steps for release from guarantees; no order in the exact terms sought by either party.
6 Sept 2007

CHI WING AND ANOTHER t/a SINGAPORE HEADWAY MEDICINE CO v. ENG KWAN LAN t/a KAM YING TRADING CO

Citation

CHI WING AND ANOTHER t/a SINGAPORE HEADWAY MEDICINE CO v. ENG KWAN LAN t/a KAM YING TRADING CO
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP730/2007

The application for leave to adduce further evidence was refused because the respondent failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the lateness, there had been two prior refusals by the Registrar with no material change in circumstances, the respondent was responsible for the omission, and admitting the evidence would cause prejudice, delay and increased costs; on that basis the court exercised its discretion to refuse leave.
3 Apr 2001

WONG WEI PING MARTIN v. JOLLY FIRST CAPITAL LTD.

Citation

WONG WEI PING MARTIN v. JOLLY FIRST CAPITAL LTD.
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA5360/2000

The appeal was allowed because the two actions arise from the same series of transactions, involve identical or overlapping plaintiffs, defendants and crucial witnesses, and present common questions of law and fact such that trying the cases together by the same judge will save time and costs and avoid the risk of inconsistent findings; any delay from consolidation was not substantial and procedural defects in how a witness's evidence was presented did not preclude its consideration where the court had permitted amendment.

Hong Kong Case Law

CHAN KAM PUI AND YANG WEI, THE ADMINISTRATORS OF THE ESTATE OF YANG FENG, DECEASED v. DR LAM MAN HO AND OTHERS

DAVID KONG v. PINE GROWTH MANUFACTURING CO LTD AND OTHERS

CHI WING AND ANOTHER t/a SINGAPORE HEADWAY MEDICINE CO v. ENG KWAN LAN t/a KAM YING TRADING CO

WONG WEI PING MARTIN v. JOLLY FIRST CAPITAL LTD.