Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Prejudice from delay

Legal area

Court

13 Sept 2024

LAM KONG SO, the Administrator of the estate of LAM CHUN SING, deceased v. SHUI DIAN BAO AIR CONDITIONING LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2024] HKDC 1510
Court

District Court
Case number

DCEC448/2021

Late disclosure by serving an SLoD does not require leave; however a party seeking to rely on a disclosed document as trial evidence must obtain the court's permission. The bank statement was inadmissible and lacked probative value absent live oral evidence explaining the transaction; therefore admission was refused. The application for extension of time to appeal was dismissed due to inexcusable delay, significant and irremediable prejudice to the applicant and the intended appeal lacking merit.
7 Jun 2022

THE ONE PROPERTY LTD v. THE SWATCH GROUP (HONG KONG) LTD

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 1693
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA268/2021

The application for a stay was dismissed because the defendant failed to show that the Court of Appeal decision was likely to have a critical impact on the appeals and because the delay from a stay would prejudice the plaintiffs; the court must favour cost‑effectiveness and expeditious resolution under RHC Order 1A.
3 Dec 2020

譚國武 v. 三星電子香港有限公司 AND OTHERS

Citation

[2020] HKDC 1136
Court

District Court
Case number

DCEC1786/2019

Joinder out of time was allowed because the applicant established a genuine reason for delay (head injury and late discovery of parties via Form 2), the delay was short, the claim had strong prospects on liability, and the respondents failed to substantiate prejudice; s24(6) notice requirement does not automatically render a claim unmaintainable in these circumstances and, alternatively, the court would exercise its discretion to allow the joinder.
29 May 2020

CHEUK CHOI HUNG v. TUNG WAH GROUP OF HOSPITALS

Citation

[2020] HKDC 372
Court

District Court
Case number

DCEC2403/2018

The court refused to exercise its discretion to extend time because the applicant failed to provide a reasonable and credible excuse for the one year and 25 days delay, produced no evidential basis for the merits of the intended appeal (no medical reports supporting additional sick leave), and the respondent would be prejudiced by the delay; accordingly the Appeal Summons and related Adjournment Summons were dismissed.
14 May 2020

HKSAR v. ZHOU LIMEI（周禮梅）

Citation

[2020] HKCFA 15
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FACC7/2019

The Court of Final Appeal held that the Court of Appeal erred by failing to take adequate account of the appellant's psychiatric condition and the cumulative prejudice from prolonged custody (about seven years) facing a second retrial; given the unusual nature of ordering a second retrial and the lack of cogent and compelling reasons, the retrial order was unjustified and quashed, with the appellant to be released.
4 Apr 2018

HUSSAIN MOHABAT v. 大山公司 (建築材料)

Citation

[2018] HKDC 355
Court

District Court
Case number

DCEC1060/2016

Applicant failed to establish a reasonable excuse for the long delay under s.14(4) ECO and failed to prove the alleged back injury was caused by the 1996 accident; the delay caused grave prejudice because company records were lost and the wrong party appears to have been sued; accordingly leave to commence out of time was refused and the summons dismissed.
29 May 2015

MOHAMMAD JAVED v. LO KUI CHEUNG AND ANOTHER

Citation

MOHAMMAD JAVED v. LO KUI CHEUNG AND ANOTHER
Court

District Court
Case number

DCEC1230/2014

Applicant's stated reasons did not amount to a reasonable excuse or make it equitable to disapply limitation: delays were substantial, applicant's background and conduct showed he should have acted earlier, failure to file Form 2 did not legally justify the delay, and defendants demonstrated real prejudice from loss of witnesses and evidence; therefore both EC and PI actions must be struck out and costs awarded to respondents.
14 May 2013

WAI SHUN CONSTRUCTION CO LTD (IN LIQUIDATION) v. FITZROYA FINANCE CO LTD

Citation

WAI SHUN CONSTRUCTION CO LTD (IN LIQUIDATION) v. FITZROYA FINANCE CO LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2051/2004

Though substantial periods of inactivity existed, both sides bore responsibility for delay (notably the defendant's deregistration overlapped complained periods), Fitzroya failed to establish prejudice of a kind that would defeat a fair trial (no evidence of taken proofs or irretrievable loss of material evidence), breaches of orders were minor or excused, and delay alone did not amount to abuse of process; therefore the strike out applications were dismissed.
28 Feb 2012

JOHNSON CONTROLS HONG KONG LTD v. ASSOCIATED ENGINEERS LTD

Citation

JOHNSON CONTROLS HONG KONG LTD v. ASSOCIATED ENGINEERS LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCT47/2011

The Striking Out Summons was dismissed because the plaintiff failed to establish requisite prejudice and abuse of process from the defendant's delay; the Amendments Summons was allowed in part — the court permitted the addition of an indemnity-based counterclaim (arguably not time barred because accrual depends on clause construction and loss ascertainment) and permitted amendments quantifying additional labour and rectification costs, but disallowed new factual particulars and new allegations of breaches because they would cause irreparable prejudice not compensable by costs.
8 Apr 2011

WING FAI CONSTRUCTION CO LTD (In Liquidation) v. CHENG KIT YIN KELLY AND OTHERS

Citation

WING FAI CONSTRUCTION CO LTD (In Liquidation) v. CHENG KIT YIN KELLY AND OTHERS
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV249/2010

The Court of Appeal upheld the judge's exercise of discretion to refuse leave to provide security out of time and to dismiss the action as the plaintiff's inordinate and unexplained delay (including a deliberate commercial decision to continue in breach of the 2005 order and to 'warehouse' the action), together with resulting prejudice to defendants, rendered the application untenable; the judge did not misapply the legal test and his decision was within permissible discretion.