Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Leave to file out of time

Legal area

Court

3 Mar 2023

RE GUOAN INTERNATIONAL LTD (in liquidation)

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 666
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCW453/2022

The court held the second core requirement was satisfied: despite a Cayman liquidation and a Recognition Order, the Recognition Order did not confer power to deal with or dispose assets in Hong Kong and only a Hong Kong winding up order would activate CWUO powers enabling liquidators to investigate, summon parties and realise assets for the benefit of creditors; accordingly an ancillary winding up order was made.
4 Nov 2022

MING LEE FOUNDATION CO LTD v. W.M. CONSTRUCTION LTD

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 3373
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1065/2021

The master could properly conclude that the plaintiff's refusal to grant a short three‑day extension and the immediate issuance of summonses were unreasonable conduct relevant to costs; the appellant did not demonstrate the master's discretion was unreasonable or legally erroneous and the appeal is therefore dismissed.
31 Aug 2022

CHAN PAK HUNG v. KEUNG LAI NOR WINNIE

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 2667
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1158/2017

BTC's 19 February 2021 letter constituted a sanctioned offer and Calderbank correspondence, but the plaintiff failed to prove he obtained a judgment overall more advantageous than his offer (notably insufficient proof on property valuation and only modest advantage on occupation rent), therefore indemnity costs were not justified; leave to file the variation summons out of time was granted; variation summons dismissed; costs awarded to defendant and summarily assessed.
14 Jul 2021

KU MUI YING for herself and on behalf of the members of the family of YUEN CHU WING, deceased v. W. HING CONSTRUCTION CO LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

[2021] HKDC 830
Court

District Court
Case number

DCEC2360/2020

Considering the applicant's limited education and background, the protracted and complex investigation, communications from the insurer/adjuster and Labour Department that conveyed the importance of a Coroner's decision and suggested ongoing handling, the abrupt adverse change in position communicated close to the 24‑month deadline, the short period of delay (about one to one and a half months), the applicant's prompt application for legal aid and lack of specific prejudice to respondents, the court concluded there was a reasonable excuse under s14(4) ECO and granted leave to file the employe…
17 Jul 2020

IP PUI LAM ARTHUR AND ANOTHER v. ALAN CHUNG WAH TANG AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 1621
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCB3819/2011

Leave to file the variation summons out of time was granted because there was no prejudice to the respondents and the substantive variation was raised within time and argued on the papers; however the variation summons was dismissed and indemnity costs were ordered because the applicants pursued an application that was untenable in law (lack of jurisdiction to order the affidavit) and had been put on notice by prior correspondence and authority, such conduct justified indemnity costs.
1 Aug 2017

BECKTON INTERNATIONAL LTD AND ANOTHER v. OOI LEAN CHOO (also known as ALSIE LAU)

Citation

BECKTON INTERNATIONAL LTD AND ANOTHER v. OOI LEAN CHOO (also known as ALSIE LAU)
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1945/2014

Because the Consolidated Statement of Claim had been dispensed with and the Defences presented were prepared in response to that now-invalid consolidated pleading, those Defences are ineffective; the defendants had not filed Defences to the original Statements of Claim and therefore must apply to file defences out of time if they wish to defend; consequently the applications to amend defences could not properly proceed and case management directions were required to correct the procedural course.
20 Oct 2015

THY v. CHFR

Citation

THY v. CHFR
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV228/2015

Because the respondent purged his contempt on 18 September 2015 the Hadkinson sanction ceased; the court exercised its discretion afresh and granted leave to the respondent to file his Answer and Cross Petition out of time (by 23 October 2015), set aside Judge Melloy's 9 April 2015 order, and made specific costs directions reflecting that no order for costs be made in this appeal but that the respondent pay the petitioner's costs of HCMP 1755 of 2015 (respondent's costs in HCMP taxed on indemnity basis if not agreed).
19 Apr 2010

NGAN YU CHIU v. NEW WORLD FIRST BUS SERVICES LTD

Citation

NGAN YU CHIU v. NEW WORLD FIRST BUS SERVICES LTD
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ824/2009

The claim was struck out because it fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Labour Tribunal and the Plaintiff's attempt to litigate alleged re‑employment and related damages in this Court constituted an abuse of process and was barred by issue estoppel given the prior binding finding of constructive dismissal; consequently leave to file out of time was refused and costs awarded to the Defendant.
30 Jun 2008

LAM YUK HON v. KOOK TAI WAI

Citation

LAM YUK HON v. KOOK TAI WAI
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCW1138/1999

Leave to file the respondent's 8th Affirmation out of time was refused and the affirmation expunged because (1) the respondent's explanation for delay was not reasonable and demonstrated deliberate dilatory conduct, and (2) as a matter of law the parties had agreed under the Tomlin Order to be bound by the independent auditor's (PwC) valuation which cannot be re-opened on grounds of alleged errors in correctness absent fraud, collusion or material departure from instructions; accordingly the respondent was ordered to buy the petitioner's 45% shareholding for $6,191,499 with interest and costs.
26 Jun 2007

LAW MEI NGO v. HOSPITAL AUTHORITY

Citation

LAW MEI NGO v. HOSPITAL AUTHORITY
Court

District Court
Case number

DCEC1637/2006

Judge found on the evidence, including psychiatric opinion, that the applicant suffered PTSD and Major Depressive Disorder caused by her SARS ICU work, that the condition amounted to a mental disability throughout the limitation period and therefore constituted a reasonable excuse under section 14(4); leave to file out of time was granted.