Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Sanctions for non-compliance

Legal area

Court

17 Jun 2022

朱賽金對香港區域法院萬可宜法官

Citation

[2022] HKCA 854
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV222/2020

The applications for leave were refused because the applicant failed to seek relief from the unless order within the required time and offered no reasonable explanation for the delay or for non-compliance; independently, the proposed appeals lacked any arguable grounds of public importance or reasonable prospects of success and the allegations of bias or misconduct were unsupported, so leave to the Court of Final Appeal was not justified.
19 Jul 2021

RE DIANA DAMAYANTI

Citation

[2021] HKCA 1004
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV559/2020

Relief from the sanction was refused because the applicant failed to comply with repeated court directions and the unless order, provided no explanation and applied out of time, and because the intended appeal/judicial review was found to be unarguable with no reasonable prospect of success; accordingly the dismissal under the unless order stands.
13 Apr 2021

ONG PUI LING TRACY v. 上海世茂北外灘開發建設有限公司 AND OTHERS

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 995
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCPI736/2018

Defendants' application was their first application and there was no history of non-compliance; accordingly an unless order was inappropriate and the Master's decision to grant an extension was correct. The plaintiff's appeal was unreasonable and indemnity costs were ordered against the plaintiff.
14 Aug 2019

LI MEI v. ARANBANPHOTKUN, PRATTHANA

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 1973
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2145/2015

Adjournment was permitted but only on strict terms because the defendant's medical evidence was deficient and late; the court required a fixing appointment within 21 days, an up-to-date treating-doctor report, payment of assessed costs by a set date and imposed the sanction that failure to comply would bar the defendant from relying on her defence and allow the plaintiff to proceed.
10 Apr 2019

RE ALIM ABDUL

Citation

[2019] HKCA 324
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV498/2018

Relief from the sanction was refused because the applicant had repeatedly failed to comply with court directions without satisfactory explanation, the statutory 14-day limit had lapsed rendering the dismissal effective, and the underlying appeal was bound to fail on its merits as the Board found the applicant's evidence not credible; additionally, new fact-sensitive grounds could not be entertained on appeal, making relief futile and contrary to the administration of justice.
22 Oct 2018

ELIJAH SAATORI v. RAFFLES MEDICAL GROUP (HONG KONG) LTD

Citation

[2018] HKCA 732
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV230/2016

The appeal is dismissed: the 7 September 2016 order was a valid unless order, the plaintiff failed to obtain relief within the prescribed period and therefore the sanction (dismissal entered 7 November 2016) operated; that judgment is appealable as of right and the plaintiff cannot collaterally attack prior refusals of leave to appeal by the Court of Appeal, such attempts amount to abuse of process.
6 Jun 2017

WONG FONG YUK v. 黃興醒

Citation

WONG FONG YUK v. 黃興醒
Court

District Court
Case number

DCPI1694/2013

The plaintiff's solicitors repeatedly and unacceptably failed to comply with court-ordered milestone dates; their failures amounted to negligence and not "exceptional circumstances" under Order 25 rule 3 RDC. The adjournment application was refused insofar as it sought informal variation, but the court granted one final opportunity subject to strict conditions: the plaintiff must apply to restore the assessment hearing within 7 days and re-lodge and re-serve the opening submission in Chinese within 14 days, with proposed personal indemnity costs against the solicitors unless representations a…
9 Oct 2015

LEUNG KWAI YING v. LUK MAN YEUNG

Citation

LEUNG KWAI YING v. LUK MAN YEUNG
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ1104/2013

The court dismissed the application to file a supplemental witness statement because the unless order and the 14-day relief rule under Order 2 took effect automatically, the defendant failed to apply promptly or file supporting evidence, the delay (about 9 months) was unexplained and would prejudice trial readiness. The court allowed the restoration of the struck-out counterclaim despite inadequate explanation because the counterclaim raises the same issues as the defence and refusal to restore would impede just and efficient disposal of all issues; restoration was granted with conditions and…
7 Apr 2014

CHINA METAL RECYCLING (HOLDINGS) LTD (in Provisional Liquidation) AND ANOTHER v. CHUN CHI WAI AND OTHERS

Citation

CHINA METAL RECYCLING (HOLDINGS) LTD (in Provisional Liquidation) AND ANOTHER v. CHUN CHI WAI AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1412/2013

The court has jurisdiction to impose an Unless Order for persistent non‑compliance with mandatory disclosure orders and should exercise a balancing discretion taking into account likelihood of a successful challenge, prejudice to parties and conduct of the defendant. Here the 5th defendant's failure to comply over eight months, lack of legitimate excuse and apparent deliberate contumelious behaviour justified making an Unless Order. The court therefore imposed deadlines for compliance and fixed sanctions (strike out of defence and counterclaim) for failure to comply; further discovery was ord…
10 Sept 2013

FALCON PRIVATE BANK LTD v. BORRY BERNARD EDOUARD CHARLES LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

FALCON PRIVATE BANK LTD v. BORRY BERNARD EDOUARD CHARLES LTD AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV42/2013

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal on the recusal ground, holding that the judge's considered written findings that counsel had deliberately misled the court and the attendant attacks on professional integrity gave rise to a real possibility of apparent bias such that the judge should have recused himself; accordingly parts of the order dated 7 June 2012 were set aside and the Discharge and Strike-out summonses were remitted for rehearing before a different judge.