Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Limitation and laches

Legal area

Court

2 Jun 2022

POLYLINE DEVELOPMENT LTD v. CHING LIN CHUEN AND OTHERS

Citation

[2022] HKCA 787
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV139/2021

The Court dismissed the security for costs application because, although the plaintiff is impecunious and security was sought for over HK$2.7 million, a preliminary view of the merits showed the appeal raised arguable errors in the judge's treatment of the pleaded business model — in particular the judge likely erred in treating D12 as a designated SPV — and those merits constituted a countervailing factor sufficient to refuse security for costs.
3 Mar 2021

POLYLINE DEVELOPMENT LTD v. CHING LIN CHUEN AND OTHERS

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 483
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2319/2019

The court struck out the statement of claim as against the WG defendants (1st, 6th-12th, 14th-16th, 18th) and the 4th defendant: whilst the pleaded resulting trust against D12 (based on alleged nil consideration) was the only arguable cause of action at the pleading stage, the transfer deeds contained receipt/consideration clauses creating a contractual estoppel that made the nil‑consideration allegation impossible to establish on the available evidence, and all other pleaded causes of action were deficient (no reasonable cause disclosed) and therefore struck out; limitation and laches were n…
29 Jul 2020

YEUNG HOCK WAI also known as YEUNG HOCK WI v. CHAN WAI MAN, THE ADMINISTRATRIX OF THE ESTATE OF YEUNG HUNG HEI PATRICK, DECEASED

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 1693
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2812/2015

The court found on the evidence the 1999 transfers were not proved to be conditional: alleged conditions were at best precatory and, in any event, void for uncertainty; alternatively any trust arising from breach would be a remedial (Type 2) constructive trust caught by the six‑year limitation and, together with inordinate delay, barred by laches; accordingly the plaintiff's claim failed and was dismissed.
23 Apr 2020

RE HALDAR BASED

Citation

[2020] HKCA 224
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP96/2019

Extension of time was refused because the applicant offered no reasonable explanation for delay and the intended appeal disclosed no arguable grounds or realistic prospect of success; the judge below did not err in finding no procedural unfairness or legal error, so a hopeless appeal did not warrant extension of time.
24 Aug 2016

CHEN JINHUI v. WONG KAM SAN AND OTHERS

Citation

CHEN JINHUI v. WONG KAM SAN AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1524/2012

The appeal was allowed because the work record entries are relevant to the live issues, authenticity is contested and therefore ink dating expert evidence is probative and proportionate, and the defendants' application was timely under the registrar's case management directions, so leave to adduce ink dating evidence must be granted.
23 Jun 2014

WING MING GARMENT FACTORY LTD v. THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF WING MING INDUSTRIAL CENTRE

Citation

WING MING GARMENT FACTORY LTD v. THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF WING MING INDUSTRIAL CENTRE
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCT60/2006

Court held that the waterproofing membrane in the Upper Roof is a common part and the IO breached its duty under s.18(1)(a) to maintain it, ordering full replacement to agreed specification; the IO is responsible for identified Basement defects (staircase landing ceiling, pile cap reinstatement, basement walls, sump pit removal, staircase void repair) and 10/F ceiling repairs; IO has standing under s.18(1)(c) to enforce DMC obligations; many IO counterclaims were dismissed (including claim relating to 1994-96 G/F alterations), but Wing Ming was ordered to remove 2005-06 G/F alterations, to pa…
30 Apr 2014

WELLSINO LTD v. ELLA HOLDING COMPANY LTD

Citation

WELLSINO LTD v. ELLA HOLDING COMPANY LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1903/2013

The application for default judgment was dismissed because service on the 2nd defendant could not be shown to be reliably effected due to an address discrepancy in the certificate of posting, and independently the pleaded claim against the 2nd defendant was founded on an oral agreement which did not meet the statutory writing requirement under s.3 of the Conveyancing and Property Ordinance (no signed memorandum/receipt alleged), so default judgment could not properly be given.
20 Mar 2013

LEE WAI CHI AND OTHERS v, LI WAI CHI, FRANKY AND ANOTHER

Citation

LEE WAI CHI AND OTHERS v, LI WAI CHI, FRANKY AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAP9/2008

D1 had failed to comply substantially with the Discovery Order and the Affirmation Disclosure Order of the Poon Order; because the undertakings could not be effectively policed and there was credible risk of dissipation of assets traceable to the Family Properties, the court was entitled to grant an unless order to compel disclosure and to grant injunctive relief to protect those assets; the split trial application failed as unjustified and would undermine enforcement of the Poon Order; summary account was appropriate in respect of the admitted withdrawals.
25 May 2009

DYNASTY LINE LTD (Provisional Liquidators appointed) v. SUKAMTO SIA AND ANOTHER

Citation

DYNASTY LINE LTD (Provisional Liquidators appointed) v. SUKAMTO SIA AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV180/2008

The 1st defendant was validly served in Hong Kong by leaving court documents on his person at the airport after he refused to accept them, but the 1st defendant succeeded on forum non conveniens and the action against him is stayed because Singapore (or BVI) is a distinctly more appropriate forum; the 2nd defendant succeeded in having the order for service out of jurisdiction set aside because although the plaintiff raised a good arguable case under Order 11 r.1(f) and (p), it failed to show Hong Kong was clearly the appropriate forum for trial; consequently Mareva injunctions were discharged.
4 Sept 2008

BANK OF CHINA (HONG KONG) LTD v. LINK REGENT INVESTMENT LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

BANK OF CHINA (HONG KONG) LTD v. LINK REGENT INVESTMENT LTD AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA4518/2003

Order 6 r.8 cannot be used to extend writ validity from the date of the Master’s order long after expiry; however the court has inherent jurisdiction to dispense with service of writs even after the period for valid service has expired where justice requires it; applying that principle, the Master properly dispensed with service but erred in ordering a renewed 12-month extension of validity, so that paragraph was set aside while the remainder of the order was upheld.