Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Costs of adjournment

Legal area

Court

14 Apr 2021

LAM HON KEUNG KEITH v. DALNY ESTATES LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 1282
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2426/2015

The untimely death of the plaintiff constituted exceptional circumstances engaging the court's discretion to adjourn; because the Executors require reasonable time to obtain substituted evidence and the defendants failed to demonstrate specific prejudice, the balance favored adjournment and the plaintiff (estate) must pay defendants' costs of and occasioned by the adjournment and vacating of the trial.
14 Apr 2021

LAM HON KEUNG KEITH v. JOLLIDA ENTERPRISES LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 1282
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2428/2015

The court exercised its discretion to adjourn the trial because the plaintiff's untimely death constituted exceptional circumstances, defendants did not demonstrate specific prejudice from delay, and fairness required allowing the Executors reasonable time to obtain substitute evidence; accordingly the trial was vacated and the plaintiff (estate) ordered to pay defendants' costs of the adjournment and costs thrown away, taxed party-and-party if not agreed.
11 Jan 2016

THE PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF CHAN CHUEN, DECEASED v. FORESTSIDE LTD

Citation

THE PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF CHAN CHUEN, DECEASED v. FORESTSIDE LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2055/2011

The adjournment application was refused because the plaintiff provided no affidavit evidence, had not instructed counsel nor demonstrated efforts to obtain counsel, and there was uncertainty and likely refusal by legal aid to bear adjournment costs; therefore the court will not grant indulgence to a litigant who has not acted with due diligence, though a short adjournment was granted with costs reserved given the circumstances.
9 Sept 2011

CHAN WAI TAK v. CHAN MAU PING alias CHAN MAU PING TANDY AND OTHERS

Citation

CHAN WAI TAK v. CHAN MAU PING alias CHAN MAU PING TANDY AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2321/2009

The adjournment was occasioned and necessitated by the defendants' very late application to file a witness statement (and their request for time to file supporting affidavit), the defendants' very late disclosure and supply of documents and failure to provide full and accurate information about those documents as required by authority, and the defendants' request for time to consider and file a strike out application; accordingly the costs of and occasioned by the adjournment were ordered to be borne by the 1st, 2nd and 6th defendants.
14 Jun 2007

PAI CHIN MING AND ANOTHER v. LUO XIAO AND ANOTHER

Citation

PAI CHIN MING AND ANOTHER v. LUO XIAO AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2693/2006

Because substantial new evidence and a revised Statement of Claim were produced shortly before the hearing, fairness required granting the Defendants an opportunity to file evidence in response; accordingly the Recorder adjourned the hearing and allowed a 21‑day period for the Defendants to file and serve their reply evidence, reserved the costs of the hearing and ordered that costs thrown away by the adjournment be to the Defendants.
29 Apr 2006

ASM ASSEMBLY AUTOMATION LTD AND ANOTHER v. CHAN LO KWAN AND ANOTHER

Citation

ASM ASSEMBLY AUTOMATION LTD AND ANOTHER v. CHAN LO KWAN AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA7622/1999

Apply the test whether an item would have been incurred irrespective of the adjournment; counsel fees ordinarily fail that test, but where the costs order separately certifies two counsel those fees can be treated as a discrete item and allowed; on review the allowed amounts are HK$164,000 for senior counsel and HK$50,000 for junior counsel.
17 Jan 2006

ASIA PACIFIC LASIK CENTRE LTD v. QUALITY HEALTHCARE MEDICAL SERVICES LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

ASIA PACIFIC LASIK CENTRE LTD v. QUALITY HEALTHCARE MEDICAL SERVICES LTD AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP2244/2005

Leave to appeal was refused because the plaintiff's summonses were effectively hopeless on the amended defence; there was no arguable basis to set aside the Master's costs order and no error of law or unreasonableness justifying appellate interference.
6 Dec 2004

SANYAU DEVELOPMENT LTD v. TAM WAH HUNG

Citation

SANYAU DEVELOPMENT LTD v. TAM WAH HUNG
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1416/2002

The adjournment was granted because the defendant's medical condition justified delay, but to protect the plaintiffs from prejudice the court imposed conditional terms: the defendant must pay into court HK$2,267,000 within 28 days, submit to psychiatric examination by psychiatrists nominated by the plaintiffs at his expense on seven days' notice, and pay the costs occasioned by the adjournment.
7 Jul 2000

LEE SAU LING v. CHAN MAN SANG AND ANOTHER

Citation

LEE SAU LING v. CHAN MAN SANG AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1731/1998

Where third party proceedings are withdrawn without determination or admission of liability the withdrawing defendants are to be treated as the unsuccessful litigants for the purpose of a prior costs order; the court may, under its inherent jurisdiction, clarify the earlier order to require the defendants to pay the plaintiff's costs for the adjourned hearing.
28 May 1974

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL v. LEUNG CHI KIN

Citation

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL v. LEUNG CHI KIN
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC119/1974

The Case as drafted and signed by the magistrate was manifestly deficient (missing material findings, parties' contentions and properly framed questions); under s.109 the appellate court must remit the Case to the magistrate for restatement; parties should attempt to agree a draft and may use s.112 to compel amendment; appeal adjourned and appellant ordered to pay respondent's costs of the adjournment (including fee of not more than one counsel).