Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Pre-trial directions

Legal area

Court

22 May 2024

BOLD SHINE INVESTMENT LTD v. TSUI YEE KWAN

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 1471
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1867/1999

The judge refused leave to appeal because the proposed grounds were not reasonably arguable: the issue of whether defendants could raise the authority challenge was properly treated as a case management matter; counsel's PTR conduct and the recorded agreement supported allowing the challenge at trial; the exercise of discretion did not disclose any error warranting appellate intervention, and therefore leave to appeal was refused.
18 Mar 2024

CHEUNG LIK HANG v. SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE for and on behalf of THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 1089
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCPI20/2023

The court granted the defendant's summons and ordered leave to adduce the late witness statement and incidental discovery because the new evidence aligned with the pleaded case, would not cause irreparable prejudice or surprising change of case, and fairness required permitting it; the plaintiff was granted leave to file a responsive witness statement within a fixed short timetable.
31 Jul 2023

GENG HUA ZHONG AND OTHERS v. LI SHU HON AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 2080
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCW403/2017

Amendments to the petitions are allowed in part: amendments relating to the quasi-partnership basis permitted but proposed new complaints concerning off-record transactions are disallowed because they are late, insufficiently justified and appear to raise matters more appropriate for defence; specific paragraphs seeking to introduce off-record transaction complaints are to be deleted; costs of the amendment application are reserved and pre-trial directions are given to streamline the trial.
29 May 2023

LING MAN YIU RAYMOND t/a BUILD TECH ENGINEERING CO v. YAU LUEN METAL WORKS LTD

Citation

[2023] HKDC 735
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ5285/2019

Granted leave to amend only to the extent amendments complied with pleading rules and would not cause prejudice or open the door to new evidence given the imminent trial (allowed §4, the first sentence of §8(2), clarification re clause 2 in §22, §26 and all unopposed amendments); disallowed specific pleaded matters as vague, embarrassing or prejudicial (rest of §8(2), the Time Allegations §§9A/13/17, sentence in §12, §15A, and the 'outdated' part of §22) and ordered defendant to pay indemnity costs to plaintiff including costs of the hearing.
1 Apr 2022

HKSAR v. FUNG KA MAN AND OTHERS

Citation

[2022] HKDC 278
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCC240/2021

The application for consolidation was dismissed because the court found insufficient justification to alter settled trial arrangements given the proximity of the trial dates (less than six months away), the potential prejudice and disruption to defendants and counsel, and the absence of compelling reasons to outweigh those considerations; consolidation is a discretionary remedy not warranted on these facts.
5 Mar 2021

CHAN CHI YING v. SCHINDLER LIFTS (HONG KONG) LTD

Citation

[2021] HKDC 225
Court

District Court
Case number

DCPI1495/2017

The court held that portions of the joint expert report based on inspections, measurements and tests conducted five years after the accident that amounted to purely factual observations or speculative testing were irrelevant and not of probative value and therefore inadmissible; opinions where experts went beyond their remit or attempted to decide factual issues or recommend measures unrelated to contested issues should be expunged. Accordingly specified paragraphs were expunged while other opinion paragraphs within expertise and properly based on admitted material were retained.
15 Sept 2020

CONVERGE DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION CO LTD v. MOUNT KELLY INTERNATIONAL LTD

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 2433
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCT72/2018

The Defendant's application to adduce the second supplemental witness statement and supplemental list was refused because the Defendant failed to justify the delay, offered no credible explanation for late disclosure, the New Statement raised matters that should have been addressed in earlier statements or pleadings (including a new loss of revenue case), and admission would cause actual prejudice and unfairness to the Plaintiff; costs were ordered against the Defendant.
5 Jun 2020

朱賽金對 PIZZAEXPRESS (HONG KONG) LTD

Citation

[2020] HKDC 397
Court

District Court
Case number

DCPI2731/2018

The judge declined to recuse because the plaintiff's allegations lacked factual foundation and did not establish actual bias; a reasonable, informed observer would not apprehend that the judge was biased merely because the plaintiff lost an earlier appeal or because routine pre-trial directions were made; accordingly the recusal application was dismissed and costs were ordered against the plaintiff.
11 May 2020

HING YIP HOLDINGS (HONG KONG) LTD (In Compulsory Liquidation) v. CELLMARK CHINA LTD (In Voluntary Liquidation) (Formerly known as Pechiney Far East Limited) AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 757
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCL15/2016

The application to include the disputed documents was refused because the plaintiff failed to provide any affidavit explaining the long delay in disclosure and provenance despite discovering one document in September 2018, the delay caused clear prejudice requiring further discovery and witness statements, and the marginal relevance and disproportionate burden of admitting the documents defeated CJR objectives.
9 Apr 2020

LUEN MING SUPREME FABRICATOR CO LTD AND ANOTHER v. NG CHI WAH AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 624
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2593/2017

Retrospective leave granted because the plaintiffs provided acceptable explanations for the delay, the supplemental documents were served well before trial and were largely public records or party communications that the defendants could not reasonably say were surprising, the documents were relevant to disputed facts and credibility, admission did not require amendment of pleadings or further witness statements, and defendants failed to demonstrate specific prejudice from admission.