Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Limitation/time-bar

Legal area

Court

30 Jun 2023

CHENG WAN KAAI v. HOSPITAL AUTHORITY

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 1698
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1303/2022

The court found that Dr Chung was a lawfully practising registered medical practitioner entitled to practise psychiatry despite not being on the Specialist Register; there was no evidence of conduct prohibited by s.28 MRO; the medical treatment was team‑based and supervised and the diagnosis was supported by records; the alleged defamatory acts were unparticularised, consented to in relation to the letter, or time‑barred and there was no proven publication to third parties; accordingly both Originating Summonses failed and were dismissed with costs to the defendant.
29 Jun 2023

鄺偉明對基督教九龍五旬節會有限公司及另五人

Citation

[2023] HKDC 880
Court

District Court
Case number

DCEO4/2022

申索人未能提出簡明扼要且能反駁原審法官理由的新理據，擬上訴無合理機會得直；原審在時效及酌情權上並無可被上訴法庭合理干預之錯誤，故上訴許可申請被拒絕；鑑於申請屬瑣屑無聊並濫用程序，法庭批准答辯人及教育局之訟費請求但予以適當下調。
25 Mar 2022

YIP KIM PO v. AIG INSURANCE HONG KONG LTD (FORMERLY KNOWN AS AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL UNDERWRITERS LTD)

Citation

[2022] HKCA 464
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV351/2021

Security for costs was ordered because the applicant had not discharged the burden to show he was unable to furnish security (no disclosure of assets or alternate funding) and the appeal had little merit as the Judge below had correctly applied contractual interpretation principles; the appropriate security was fixed at HK$300,000 and costs of the application summarily assessed at HK$100,000.
30 Sept 2021

陳雲及另一人對振威金屬有限公司及另二人

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 2911
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1824/2013

The plaintiffs' claim based on an alleged oral agreement to sell the property in July 2011 failed because the court did not accept the plaintiffs' evidence and, in any event, agreements for sale of land are unenforceable if not in writing under Cap.219 s3; title passed to the defendants by the 1999 assignment supported by contemporaneous cheques and documents, thus plaintiffs must surrender vacant possession and pay arrears, rates, government rent and mesne profits as assessed.
30 Aug 2021

CHIK CHI SHING v. CHEUNG KUI YIN

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 2520
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2294/2019

The disputed pleas were plainly irrelevant to the core issues because they concerned transactions outside the relevant 1992/1993 timeframe, involved non-parties and did not bear on who paid the deposit or the existence of the Agreement; the time-bar defence was irrelevant as the Plaintiff did not seek repayment of the Loan; accordingly the Master’s strike-out was correct and the appeal is dismissed with costs.
25 Apr 2018

ALCANTARA LOLITA SERRATO v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 887
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL723/2017

Leave was refused because the Adjudicator and the Director had lawful bases for their findings, their decisions were not Wednesbury unreasonable, procedural fairness was observed (a documents-only determination was appropriate), there were no reasonably arguable grounds for judicial review, and the earlier Director decision was time-barred.
9 Oct 2017

HKSAR v. BULLEN CHRISTIAN ANTHONY

Citation

HKSAR v. BULLEN CHRISTIAN ANTHONY
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA50/2017

Appeal dismissed. The court held the Magistrate did not misapply the law in refusing costs: the discretionary power to award costs can take into account the appellant’s conduct and the strength of the prosecution case; there was a strong and irresistible inference of continuous ownership and factors justifying denial of costs despite acquittal on technical grounds (time-bar and inadmissible certificate).
20 Feb 2013

LEUNG KWAI LING, L v. HK GLORY PROPERTIES LTD

Citation

LEUNG KWAI LING, L v. HK GLORY PROPERTIES LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1324/2012

The claims were struck out because they disclosed no legal basis: the Development Agreement was negotiated at arm's length with independent legal advice, the defendant performed its obligations and paid compensation, the plaintiff had the right to take assignment of the new unit instead of claiming payment in lieu, challenges to earlier authorisations are time-barred, discovery requests amounted to fishing, and libel claims based on statements in judicial proceedings are not sustainable; accordingly the appeals and summonses were dismissed and costs awarded to the defendant.
20 Feb 2013

LEUNG KWAI LING, L v. HK GLORY PROPERTIES LTD

Citation

LEUNG KWAI LING, L v. HK GLORY PROPERTIES LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA366/2012

The plaintiff's claims lack any legal basis: the Development Agreement had been performed as to the defendant's obligations, the plaintiff executed a Confirmation directing release of sale proceeds, the plaintiff refuses assignment of the new unit (the proper remedy is to take assignment and sell), relevant challenges are time‑barred, discovery requests are a fishing exercise, and alleged defamatory statements made in judicial proceedings are not actionable; therefore the Statements of Claim must be struck out and the claims dismissed, with costs to the defendant.
16 Feb 2012

HKSAR v. FASTWIN GLOBAL INVESTMENT LTD

Citation

HKSAR v. FASTWIN GLOBAL INVESTMENT LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA255/2011

Section 40(1BA) of the Buildings Ordinance constitutes a continuing offence: the statutory provision for a daily penalty and the fact the offence can be terminated by subsequent compliance indicate continuity; s40(8) is permissive ('may be commenced') and does not defeat jurisdiction where the offence continues; therefore the magistrate was correct and the appeal is dismissed.