Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Speedy trial

Legal area

Court

20 Nov 2017

LEUNG TAK HING v. WU ANTHONY

Citation

LEUNG TAK HING v. WU ANTHONY
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCPI1327/2016

The application for leave to appeal was dismissed because the defendant failed to show reasonable prospects of success; the judge held that the plaintiff's terminal condition and the overriding need for a speedy trial justified permitting the overseas oncologist (Professor Nutting) and an overseas radiologist and refusing to order substitution with a local oncologist, as a matter of case management.
30 Jan 2014

GRANT SMART INVESTMENTS LTD v. ELITE RISE HOLDINGS LTD

Citation

GRANT SMART INVESTMENTS LTD v. ELITE RISE HOLDINGS LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1431/2013

Summary judgment was refused because there are genuine, fact‑sensitive disputes (existence of an oral renewal, agent authority and credibility) which require oral evidence and cross‑examination; defendant granted unconditional leave to defend and the matter was ordered for speedy trial.
13 Aug 2012

PACIFIC DUNLOP GARMENTS LTD v. FUNDAMENTAL GLOBAL LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

PACIFIC DUNLOP GARMENTS LTD v. FUNDAMENTAL GLOBAL LTD AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1655/2008

Adjournment was properly granted and a trial de novo ordered because plaintiff's counsel was unable to continue, the court would not compel disclosure of the reason absent demonstrated prejudice, and any prejudice to defendants could be compensated by indemnity costs; accordingly the plaintiff must pay costs of and occasioned by the adjournment on an indemnity basis to be taxed if not agreed.
10 Aug 2012

SBE LICENSING, LLC v. HYDE LYNDHURST LTD t/a HYDE

Citation

SBE LICENSING, LLC v. HYDE LYNDHURST LTD t/a HYDE
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1358/2011

The court refused the plaintiff's interlocutory application for an injunction and summary judgment because there were genuinely triable issues — notably the defendant's counterclaim for revocation for non-use under s52 and the risk of inconsistent findings with overlapping s18(3) claims — and the exercise of judicial discretion favored directing a speedy trial rather than granting piecemeal summary relief.
21 Aug 2009

CHINA GOLD (PRECIOUS METAL) STRATEGIC INVESTMENT LTD v. CHINA GOLD (CAPITAL) LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

CHINA GOLD (PRECIOUS METAL) STRATEGIC INVESTMENT LTD v. CHINA GOLD (CAPITAL) LTD AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1113/2009

The court ordered the summons for a speedy trial to be granted with modifications, refusing to reassign the trial to a bilingual judge because translation and interpreter assistance were adequate and the judge's familiarity with the case supported continuity; the court varied interlocutory timetables (mutual inspection within seven days, setting down after 56 days, estimated trial length five days), adjourned the unless summons generally with liberty to restore and reserved costs, and made no substantive order on the passing-off summons but assessed costs of HKD 4,000 to be paid forthwith by…
27 Jul 2009

CALIFORNIA RED LTD v. GOLD TYPHOON ENTERTAINMENT LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

CALIFORNIA RED LTD v. GOLD TYPHOON ENTERTAINMENT LTD AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2684/2008

The application for leave to discontinue was refused because a speedy trial had been ordered, the parties were ready, the issues were central to the dispute, discontinuance would not save overall time or costs and could prejudice finality; refusal allows the plaintiff the option to dismiss by consent or proceed to trial, thereby addressing estoppel concerns.
9 Jul 2008

BAI JUN TIAN CHENG LTD v. ANGOLA GROUP HOLDINGS LTD

Citation

BAI JUN TIAN CHENG LTD v. ANGOLA GROUP HOLDINGS LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1284/2005

Because the two actions shared a factual nexus and the issues could properly be resolved in HCA 1987/2005, the court allowed discontinuance of HCA 1284/2005 with costs in the cause; it permitted withdrawal of the striking out summons but, because the late withdrawal caused a wasted half-day hearing, ordered the costs of that wasted hearing to be borne by Bai Jun and Clarigain while costs of the summons remain in the cause; allowed the proposed amendments to the Defence to the Counterclaim except for para 92(e)(i)-(iv) and particulars to para 92(f)(ii); accepted a framed statement in lieu unde…
9 Jul 2008

ACHIEVE GOAL HOLDINGS LTD v. ZHONG XIN ORE-MATERIAL HOLDING CO LTD

Citation

ACHIEVE GOAL HOLDINGS LTD v. ZHONG XIN ORE-MATERIAL HOLDING CO LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1987/2005

The court exercised its discretion to allow withdrawal of HCA 1284/2005 with costs to be in the cause of HCA 1987/2005 given the factual nexus and subsumption of issues; permitted withdrawal of the striking out summons with costs in the cause but allocated the wasted hearing costs to Clarigain and Bai Jun due to late withdrawal; ordered speedy trial with directions; allowed most amendments to the Defence to the Counterclaim except specified subparagraphs and particulars, awarding costs to Clarigain and Bai Jun; and directed an agreed framed statement under O.18 r.21(2) RHC that if para.92(e)…
17 Apr 2008

SHAM TSENG CHAN KEE ROASTED GOOSE CO LTD v. GARWIN INTERNATIONAL LTD

Citation

SHAM TSENG CHAN KEE ROASTED GOOSE CO LTD v. GARWIN INTERNATIONAL LTD
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ4496/2007

The appeal was allowed and unconditional leave to defend granted because a triable issue existed as to whether an oral agreement created a new lease; the undisputed surrender of the car-parking space supported the defendant's account; clause 4 did not preclude an oral agreement and documentary absence was not fatal where oral testimony could prove the fact; and no application for interim payment had been made so the court would not impose payment into court as a condition of leave.
11 Jan 2005

CHEUNG KAM WAH v. CHEUNG HON WAH AND OTHERS

Citation

CHEUNG KAM WAH v. CHEUNG HON WAH AND OTHERS
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV53/2004

The court upheld the trial judge's findings that the plaintiff committed material non-disclosure and misrepresentation about the value of Guangzhou Caming (notably unpaid premium, potential penalty, outstanding judgment debt and accumulated losses), and, taking into account the seriousness of the non-disclosure, the plaintiff's subsequent inaction and the existence of D1's undertaking and the disturbed status quo, the judge rightly refused to exercise his discretion to grant a fresh inter partes injunction; appeal dismissed.