Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Forensic prejudice

Legal area

Court

23 Dec 2016

LIN SIU FONG CHLOE v. DR. CHAN FAN

Citation

LIN SIU FONG CHLOE v. DR. CHAN FAN
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCPI506/2015

The discretion under s30 was not exercised: the plaintiff had an unexplained post‑limitation delay of approximately 3–4 years (or at least 2 years on an alternate finding), pre‑expiry delay existed, and the defendant would suffer real forensic prejudice such that a fair trial was not possible; accordingly the s30 application was dismissed and the action struck out.
14 Jul 2016

MARTNOK THANRADEE v. COMMISSIONER OF POLICEAND ANOTHER

Citation

MARTNOK THANRADEE v. COMMISSIONER OF POLICEAND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA789/2011

Although the substitution was late and plaintiff failed to give timely notice, the court exercised discretion to admit the substituted witness's statement except for paragraph 7 which was expunged because it contained broad, unparticularised allegations giving rise to real forensic prejudice; plaintiff was not permitted to amplify that paragraph in evidence; remaining parts caused no irreparable prejudice and plaintiff accepted limits on amplification, therefore leave to call Angel was granted and costs awarded to defendants to be taxed if not agreed.
7 Oct 2014

NAM CHING WUN v. TSUN UN PAWN SHOP AND OTHERS

Citation

NAM CHING WUN v. TSUN UN PAWN SHOP AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2151/2008

The summons was dismissed because the applicant offered no satisfactory explanation for the considerable delay and surprise, the decision to rely solely on the plaintiff as sole witness was made with legal advice and should have prompted earlier steps, and admission of the son\'s witness statement at this late stage would cause real, irremediable forensic prejudice to the defendants (including the unfair advantage of tailoring evidence after reading the deposition) and would undermine the case management objectives of the CJR and the Rules of the High Court.
3 Jul 2013

TAM WAI FUN v. LEUNG KA CHEONG AND ANOTHER

Citation

TAM WAI FUN v. LEUNG KA CHEONG AND ANOTHER
Court

District Court
Case number

DCPI1503/2012

Although the plaintiff's explanation for a substantial delay was weak, the defendants failed to demonstrate any significant forensic prejudice that would render a fair trial impossible; the claim was not shown to be unarguable and in all the circumstances it was equitable to disapply the limitation period under s.30 and grant leave to continue the action
11 Apr 2011

MOK LAI FONG v. 吳寶穗 AND OTHERS

Citation

MOK LAI FONG v. 吳寶穗 AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCPI549/2010

The court disapplied section 27 and allowed the claim to proceed because (a) the post-expiry delay was relatively short (about six months), (b) the plaintiff acted reasonably in entrusting the matter to former solicitors and promptly applied for legal aid once the retainer was terminated, (c) the defendants had early notification of the claim (pre-action letter Sept 2008) and have not shown specific forensic prejudice that would prevent a fair trial, and (d) potential remedies against former solicitors do not eliminate plaintiff's prejudice and are not determinative when actual forensic preju…
23 Jul 2009

WONG HIU CHING v. LAM PUI LING

Citation

WONG HIU CHING v. LAM PUI LING
Court

District Court
Case number

DCPI2623/2008

The defendant's application to vary the costs order is dismissed because the defendant failed to show forensic prejudice; section 30 restricts the court to statutory factors (which do not include alternative remedy) and, absent evidence that the plaintiff's solicitor had effective insurance or that an insurer is solvent, alternative remedy carries little or no weight; binding authority requires favouring the plaintiff where no prejudice shown.
12 Jun 2009

WONG HIU CHING v. LAM PUI LING

Citation

WONG HIU CHING v. LAM PUI LING
Court

District Court
Case number

DCPI2623/2008

Leave under s.30 Limitation Ordinance granted because the delay was short, caused by the death of the handling solicitor and subsequent clerical failure (not by the plaintiff), and there was no evidence of forensic or evidential prejudice to the defendant; bound by appellate authority that absence of prejudice supports granting relief.

Hong Kong Case Law

LIN SIU FONG CHLOE v. DR. CHAN FAN

MARTNOK THANRADEE v. COMMISSIONER OF POLICEAND ANOTHER

NAM CHING WUN v. TSUN UN PAWN SHOP AND OTHERS

TAM WAI FUN v. LEUNG KA CHEONG AND ANOTHER

MOK LAI FONG v. 吳寶穗 AND OTHERS

WONG HIU CHING v. LAM PUI LING

WONG HIU CHING v. LAM PUI LING