Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Delay (laches)

Legal area

Court

27 Nov 2024

陳翠儀對倪彤

Citation

[2024] HKDC 2032
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ776/2024

Court found a serious issue to be tried over ownership of the HK$173,000, accepted that termination of the police investigation created sufficient urgency and that the funds were identifiable (proprietary claim); despite unsatisfactory delay explanations, the shortness of delay from alleged termination of investigation and applicant's undertakings and promise to file affidavits justified granting a conditional interim freezing order.
5 Nov 2021

KWOK CHEUK KIN v. DIRECTOR OF LANDS AND OTHERS v. HEUNG YEE KUK (Interested Party)

Citation

[2021] HKCFA 38
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FACV2/2021

Basic Law Article 40 protects the Small House Policy as a lawful traditional right or interest of indigenous inhabitants of the New Territories; "lawful" refers to public law lawfulness of the administrative discretion and "traditional" is assessed by reference to the state of affairs at promulgation of the Basic Law (April 1990); BL40 operates as a specific provision that takes the policy outside the general anti-discrimination protections, and the appeal is dismissed.
24 Dec 2019

KING’S DEVELOPMENT CO LTD v. PARKVIEW INVESTMENT LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2019] HKDC 1695
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ1664/2019

The plaintiff failed to establish a serious issue to be tried or a strong prima facie case for a mandatory injunction: documented licence/tenancy agreements and a Grant materially controverted the prescriptive easement claim, there was no evidence P's Land was landlocked, damages were adequate, plaintiff's delay was inordinate and would cause greater injustice to defendants; accordingly the interlocutory mandatory injunction was refused and the application dismissed.
31 Mar 2008

AQUA CONCEPTS LTD AND OTHERS v. HONG KONG RESORT CO. LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

AQUA CONCEPTS LTD AND OTHERS v. HONG KONG RESORT CO. LTD AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1658/2007

There is a serious question to be tried that the defendants' use of the two names may constitute a misrepresentation likely to cause dilution of the plaintiffs' goodwill; damages would be an inadequate remedy for harm to that goodwill; although the plaintiffs delayed, the delay was not fatal; accordingly interlocutory relief restraining the defendants from using the two names should be granted, subject to limited exclusions and costs rules.
22 Sept 2006

CHEUNG YUK YING v. THE PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE of LO KOON FUK AND ANOTHER

Citation

CHEUNG YUK YING v. THE PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE of LO KOON FUK AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1127/2006

The court granted a limited without‑prejudice mandatory order to roll back the wire netting because the plaintiff showed a serious issue to be tried, offered appropriate undertakings (including pre‑payment of reasonable removal costs and cross‑undertaking in damages), and the balance of convenience favored granting limited relief despite delay, while defendants had not yet filed evidence to establish a greater risk of injustice.
14 Mar 2003

SOUTH CHINA MEDIA LTD AND ANOTHER v. MEN\'S UNO INTERNATIONAL PUBLISHING LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

SOUTH CHINA MEDIA LTD AND ANOTHER v. MEN\'S UNO INTERNATIONAL PUBLISHING LTD AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA769/2003

The application was refused because although there were arguable factual disputes, the plaintiffs' cause against the 1st Defendant was weak (imputation of knowledge doubtful; key employee resigned before company existed; alter ego not pleaded), the plaintiffs unjustifiably delayed causing prejudice to defendants who had already progressed launch preparations, the covenants were of excessive scope and duration, and the balance of convenience favored refusal; costs ordered against plaintiffs.
2 Sept 2002

L v. T

Citation

L v. T
Court

Family Court
Case number

FCMC2250/2000

The Court held the 1951 customary marriage remained subsisting despite physical separation from 1956 due to the customary context and ongoing clan recognition; the 1983 High Court settlement did not dispose of the Wife's matrimonial claims; delay did not bar relief given the circumstances; applying s.7 factors and Duxbury guidance but allowing adjustment where resources exceed needs, the Wife's reasonable needs and the equities justified a single lump sum award of HK$12,000,000 as full and final settlement of her ancillary claims.
11 Dec 1986

NELSON DELIVERY SERVICE LTD v. WONG KAN t/a LAP SHUN HONG TRANSPORTATION CO AND ANOTHER

Citation

NELSON DELIVERY SERVICE LTD v. WONG KAN t/a LAP SHUN HONG TRANSPORTATION CO AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV136/1986

The Court upheld the judge's exercise of discretion to grant interlocutory injunctions: the delay was explained and not sufficiently prejudicial to bar relief, omission to assess prospects of success did not vitiate the discretion because the result would have been the same, and there was no error of law or relevant omission warranting interference with the interlocutory order.
18 Jul 1979

WONG WING-TIM THOMAS v. ATTORNEY GENERAL

Citation

WONG WING-TIM THOMAS v. ATTORNEY GENERAL
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2134/1975

The 1961 letter did not create a perpetual proprietary or enforceable right after the plaintiff had ceased business and had registrations cancelled; the Commissioner acted within statutory power and legitimate administrative discretion in adopting the three-month lapse policy (having consulted interested parties) and in relying on Reg.6(c); audi alteram partem did not apply to alter the outcome; the oral agreement was not proved; claim dismissed.
26 Mar 1972

J.C. PENNY CO INC. v. PUNJABI NARAIN (OTHERWISE KNOWN AS PUNJABI NICK) t/a PENNEYS FASHION

Citation

J.C. PENNY CO INC. v. PUNJABI NARAIN (OTHERWISE KNOWN AS PUNJABI NICK) t/a PENNEYS FASHION
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1613/1972

Plaintiff through its Hong Kong subsidiary had established sufficient local goodwill; the defendant's use of the name was dishonest and likely to cause confusion; the unexplained delay did not prejudice the defendant and therefore was not fatal to interlocutory relief; consequently an interlocutory injunction was granted.