Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Practice direction 5.2

Legal area

Court

21 Oct 2019

RE GURDAS SABHAGCHAND CHOITHRAMANI

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 2584
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCB221/1996

The court held that exceptional circumstances existed to grant one adjournment because the applicant had demonstrated that the change of counsel was effectively forced despite reasonable efforts, the matter is long‑running and complex, the applicant is elderly and would struggle to present the case in person on short notice, and there was no material prejudice from HSBC or the Official Receiver; accordingly the fixed hearing date was varied and the hearing re‑fixed after 31 December 2019 with one day reserved, with costs to be borne by the applicant and summarily assessed.
22 Jul 2016

WANG HO YIN PATRICK v. FU CHUN LUNG AND ANOTHER

Citation

WANG HO YIN PATRICK v. FU CHUN LUNG AND ANOTHER
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ4814/2014

Application refused because the proposed amended defence and counterclaim introduced new facts and assertions which would prejudice the plaintiff, permit further pleadings and evidence, and derail the trial; delay and the stage after setting down reinforced refusal despite change of solicitors.
20 Oct 2010

FAITH BRIGHT DEVELOPMENT LTD v. NG KWOK KUEN AND OTHERS

Citation

FAITH BRIGHT DEVELOPMENT LTD v. NG KWOK KUEN AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA9058/1999

Where solicitors/parties fail to file and serve the Timetabling Questionnaire and required Mediation Certificate in accordance with the Civil Justice Reform, Order 25 and Practice Directions, the Court will generally refuse to hear the Case Management Summons, adjourn the hearing and may disallow costs between parties and their clients and impose case management consequences (including barring expert evidence for default).
20 Oct 2010

YIP KEE WAI v. SO KIM WAH

Citation

YIP KEE WAI v. SO KIM WAH
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1504/2009

Where Timetabling Questionnaires are misleading or the parties have not identified key issues (notably whether expert evidence will be required), the court cannot give proper directions; substantive compliance with Order 25 rule 1 and Practice Direction 5.2 is required and failure to do so warrants adjournment and disallowance of costs; pleadings should be in a single language and parties capable of using the same language must do so to avoid imposing bilingual judge requirements.

Hong Kong Case Law

RE GURDAS SABHAGCHAND CHOITHRAMANI

WANG HO YIN PATRICK v. FU CHUN LUNG AND ANOTHER

FAITH BRIGHT DEVELOPMENT LTD v. NG KWOK KUEN AND OTHERS

YIP KEE WAI v. SO KIM WAH