Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Statute‑bar/limitation

Legal area

Court

23 Nov 2011

TAI YING FAT t/a FAT KEE ENGINEERING CO v. SUN FOOK KONG CONSTRUCTION LTD

Citation

TAI YING FAT t/a FAT KEE ENGINEERING CO v. SUN FOOK KONG CONSTRUCTION LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCT48/2009

The plaintiff's claims were either statute‑barred or duplicative and therefore hopeless; rejection of Many Harvest's pre‑trial Calderbank offer justified an order for costs on a party and party basis to 1 June 2009 and on an indemnity basis thereafter; plaintiff is not entitled to compound interest because he failed to plead compounding and has not beaten the sanctioned payment so interest is disallowed; in the SFK action plaintiff must pay defendant's costs to be taxed on a party and party basis.
18 Apr 2008

GUANGDONG NATIVE PRODUCE CO LTD v. TAM TZE YING t/a SUN YING TRADING CO

Citation

GUANGDONG NATIVE PRODUCE CO LTD v. TAM TZE YING t/a SUN YING TRADING CO
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FACV18/2007

The appeal was dismissed: the January 1993 agreement did not effect a novation because there was no consent by the Defendant nor clear intention to extinguish his liability, and the confirmation letter dated 19 July 1994 constituted a valid acknowledgement of debt supported by credible evidence preventing the claim from being statute-barred; concurrent factual findings were entitled to deference and not disturbed.
14 Feb 2008

CHAN NGAI SING v. RUBBER TECH INDUSTRIAL LTD

Citation

CHAN NGAI SING v. RUBBER TECH INDUSTRIAL LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA625/2007

The appeal is dismissed because, except for the 2002/2003 interim dividend which was found plainly not to have been declared/paid, it was not plain and obvious that the plaintiff's claim was abusive or statute-barred; factual disputes and accounting issues required further inquiry and therefore the action should not have been struck out on paper.
10 May 2006

LAM TAM LUEN v. ASIA TELEVISION LTD

Citation

LAM TAM LUEN v. ASIA TELEVISION LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCPI1394/2003

The amendment was allowed because it did not change the act or omission complained of (the defendant's failure to conceal the deceased's identity) and therefore did not introduce a new cause of action; the proposed particulars merely explained why harm was foreseeable (reference to Tang's condition as evident in the broadcast), the condition was known to both parties and central to the evidence, and any prejudice to the defendant could be cured by consequential orders, so leave to amend should be granted.
23 Nov 1979

WING TAK ENGINEERING & CO v. YU MING SHIPREPATRING CO

Citation

WING TAK ENGINEERING & CO v. YU MING SHIPREPATRING CO
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV16/1979

The Court allowed the appeal and struck out paragraph 3 because the alternative claim for work done and materials supplied did not 'arise out of the same facts or substantially the same facts' as the cause of action for account stated; permitting it would have improperly imported matters that were statute-barred and were not supported by the factual basis of the account stated.

Hong Kong Case Law

TAI YING FAT t/a FAT KEE ENGINEERING CO v. SUN FOOK KONG CONSTRUCTION LTD

GUANGDONG NATIVE PRODUCE CO LTD v. TAM TZE YING t/a SUN YING TRADING CO

CHAN NGAI SING v. RUBBER TECH INDUSTRIAL LTD

LAM TAM LUEN v. ASIA TELEVISION LTD

WING TAK ENGINEERING & CO v. YU MING SHIPREPATRING CO