Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Delay and case management

Legal area

Court

29 Dec 2025

數碼科技管理有限公司對佳定物業管理有限公司

Citation

[2025] HKDC 2178
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ4228/2022

Court found defendant had adduced credible evidence that the plaintiff company, a HKD100 paid-up company owned through offshore entities, had no demonstrable trading activity, had refused repeated requests to disclose financial records and had provided an inaccurate registered address; plaintiff failed to prove the address omission was innocent. Although the application was late and some delay was attributable to the timing of a prior striking-out order, the judge exercised discretion to grant security after weighing prejudice and reduced the quantum to reflect delay. Accordingly the threshol…
17 May 2023

YEUNG WING LUN ALAN v. YEUNG CHUNG KWONG AND OTHERS

Citation

[2023] HKCA 664
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP174/2023

The judge’s dismissal of the joinder and amendment application for delay alone was plainly wrong because it would produce real injustice by forcing trial on deficient pleadings unlikely to succeed; the prejudice to the plaintiff and risk of multiplicity and wasted resources outweighed the defendants’ prejudice from adjournment, so leave to join the father’s estate and to amend the writ and statement of claim must be granted and the trial adjourned, with costs consequences imposed on the plaintiff for the delay.
19 Jan 2023

EGNER DAVID PARKS AND OTHERS v. CATHAY PACIFIC AIRWAYS LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 351
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA245/2014

Application dismissed because applicants failed to provide a sound reason to depart from the in-person rule: the 4th Plaintiff's voluntary failure to meet entry vaccination requirements and the witness's business convenience are inadequate; both witnesses face contested credibility issues that require the court's solemn atmosphere; the application was late and unexplained, causing prejudice to case management.
16 Dec 2021

TSE TZE HIM KEN v. HO CHI FUNG RONSON AND OTHERS

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 3742
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP471/2019

The section 740 application was dismissed because the petition had not been properly progressed and there had been undue delay such that inspection was no longer appropriate; the documents sought would have been disclosed if the petition had been advanced, therefore dismissal with costs was justified.
4 Nov 2021

HONG KONG ZHIXIN FINANCIAL NEWS AGENCY LTD v. CHINA MAPLE LEAF EDUCATIONAL SYSTEMS LTD

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 3398
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2973/2016

The summons for leave to adduce a supplemental witness statement was dismissed because the application was seriously and unjustifiably delayed, the evidence could and should have been included earlier without explanation, the asserted loss was not properly pleaded and was speculative, and specific performance was not an appropriate remedy for compelling allotment of freely traded shares where damages and mitigation (purchase of replacement shares) are adequate remedies.
7 Feb 2018

CLS v. LPKP

Citation

[2018] HKFC 17
Court

Family Court
Case number

FCMC17127/2014

Although the amendment summons was belated, the court exercised its case‑management discretion and allowed the amendments in part after balancing delay and prejudice against the necessity of clarifying pleaded particulars to determine the size of the matrimonial pot and because the issues (notably the 4 Transfers and the relation between Merrill Lynch and Julius Baer accounts) were already live in the agreed list of issues; one sub‑paragraph that amounted to submission rather than pleading was disallowed and costs were reserved.
1 Dec 2017

JOE ZHIXIONG ZHOU v. SAIF PARTNERS II L.P. AND ANOTHER

Citation

JOE ZHIXIONG ZHOU v. SAIF PARTNERS II L.P. AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCL16/2016

The application to admit late expert valuation evidence was refused because the defendants failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the serious delay, the belated instruction of new counsel was not a proper justification, there were outstanding discovery disputes and a real risk that admitting the evidence would prejudice the plaintiff and jeopardise the fixed trial timetable.
18 Oct 2017

CHEN MEI HUAN v. SILVER FAITH HOLDINGS LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

CHEN MEI HUAN v. SILVER FAITH HOLDINGS LTD AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCW111/2014

Despite some delay, it was just in all the circumstances to order Chen (a foreign plaintiff ordinarily resident in Macau with contested beneficial ownership and existing substantial judgment exposure) to provide security for costs up to conclusion of the proceedings; the appropriate quantum for prospective PTR/trial costs on the material before the court was fixed at HK$1,600,000, payment within 35 days, and until payment further proceedings against the 2nd and 3rd respondents are stayed (subject to Companies Judge); costs follow the event and a costs order nisi and summary assessment directi…
9 Aug 2017

YEUNG SHUK MEI v. CHOI SUN MAN AND ANOTHER

Citation

YEUNG SHUK MEI v. CHOI SUN MAN AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2308/2012

Registrar granted leave to serve the supplemental witness statement in part because the applicant provided a reasonable explanation for delay, there was insufficient evidence of abuse of process, the contested material was relevant and probative to factual disputes about contractual performance, and prejudice to defendants was manageable by case management and costs; specific passages that were opinion, expert or contradictory to earlier statements were expunged.
25 Apr 2017

LAU WILLIAM JOHN v. WAN YUK LIN, ALISON AND OTHERS

Citation

LAU WILLIAM JOHN v. WAN YUK LIN, ALISON AND OTHERS
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV62/2016

The court refused to vacate the hearing because the Bankrupt had already been granted indulgence and further delay was unjustified; having found impecuniosity and difficulty/enforcement risk and no sufficient countervailing factors in the merits or conduct claimed by the Bankrupt, the court exercised its discretion to order security for costs of the appeal in the sum of HKD 270,000 to be lodged within 21 days, failing which the appeal would be dismissed.