Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Time bar/limitation

Legal area

Court

26 Jun 2025

NG YIU CHI ELEANOR v. REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2025] HKCA 610
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV117/2024

Appeal dismissed: the application was an abuse of process under Henderson v Henderson because the issue could and should have been raised in the earlier Consolidated Actions; even assuming factual inaccuracy, contractual or restitutionary claims arose in 1997 and are time‑barred so removal would not prevent material damage to the company nor serve the company’s interests; the appellant lacks locus/legitimate interest to pursue relief adverse to CAGL without authorisation; therefore CO s.42 relief is not granted.
13 May 2016

SINGH GILL JATINDER v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION AND OTHERS

Citation

SINGH GILL JATINDER v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL2/2016

The Director of Immigration conceded that the applicant is entitled to right of abode under paragraph 2(f) of Schedule 1 to the Immigration Ordinance, effectively resolving the primary contention; consequently the court placed the leave application in abeyance to allow parties to negotiate on consequential matters (including damages) and fixed a further hearing date, and ordered costs to the applicant to be taxed under the Legal Aid Regulations; procedurally, where a constitutional issue is reasonably arguable leave may be granted even if other challenges are time-barred, as applied in relate…
12 Oct 2015

CHUI & LAU (A FIRM) v. SELLON ENTERPRISES LTD

Citation

CHUI & LAU (A FIRM) v. SELLON ENTERPRISES LTD
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ2230/2013

The court found on the evidence that Lei, as sole director, entered into three oral agreements and repeatedly assured the firm that Sellon would pay outstanding legal costs upon sale of the Property; those assurances and conduct bound Sellon by actual and apparent authority; the cause of action accrued on the sale contingency and, in any event, acknowledgements (the faxes) refreshed limitation; the itemised bills were reasonable and not shown to be inflated; accordingly judgment for the firm for HK$462,559.79 with interest and costs was entered against Sellon.
25 Sept 2014

CHEUNG CHI WAH BEN AND ANOTHER v. JOHN DAVID ANDREW IP AND ANOTHER

Citation

CHEUNG CHI WAH BEN AND ANOTHER v. JOHN DAVID ANDREW IP AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA7928/2000

The master correctly exercised discretion to allow the amendments because they disclose a reasonable cause of action for breach of fiduciary duty (consent to dual representation may have been uninformed given Fung's role), potential conflict remained relevant to the defendants' conduct, and any new fiduciary cause of action arises out of the same facts so may be added under Order 20 r 5(5); the defendants' appeals were therefore dismissed with costs.
25 Sept 2014

TANG HING KWONG AND ANOTHER v. JOHN DAVID ANDREW IP AND ANOTHER

Citation

TANG HING KWONG AND ANOTHER v. JOHN DAVID ANDREW IP AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA7927/2000

The appeals were dismissed: the Master correctly exercised his discretion to allow the plaintiffs to amend. The proposed amendments disclose a reasonable cause of action for breach of fiduciary duty or at least raise issues for trial and, if a new cause of action, arise out of the same or substantially the same facts so are permissible under Order 20 r5(5); delay, substantial amendments and potential prejudice did not justify refusing leave in all the circumstances.
21 Oct 2013

LAM WONG KWAN YING AND ANOTHER v. LAM SIK SE, TONY

Citation

LAM WONG KWAN YING AND ANOTHER v. LAM SIK SE, TONY
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1885/1987

The summons to enforce paragraph (f) was dismissed because the applicant exhibited inordinate and inexcusable delay (over 20 years), failed to establish a clear breach on admissible evidence, and the delay caused prejudice (loss of documents and witnesses) and rendered the claim time-barred; accordingly the court refused to grant enforcement relief and ordered costs to the defendant.
11 Sept 2013

EAA SECURITIES LTD v. FATTYDAD ALICE PUI YAN, the Administratrix of the Estate of Fattydad Henry, Deceased

Citation

EAA SECURITIES LTD v. FATTYDAD ALICE PUI YAN, the Administratrix of the Estate of Fattydad Henry, Deceased
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2520/2009

The proposed amendments would introduce a contractual cause of action based on an implied term that was not pleaded at the time of filing and which, on the facts, would revive claims arising from sales in 2000 and thus be time-barred; the court therefore refused to exercise its discretion to allow those aspects of the amendment and struck out prayers (A) and (C) while permitting other amendments.
22 Mar 2012

HANNICE INDUSTRIES LTD v. ELITE UNION (HONG KONG) LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

HANNICE INDUSTRIES LTD v. ELITE UNION (HONG KONG) LTD AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1876/2011

The 2010 settlement (acknowledgment) agreement contained no arbitration clause and is a separate contract; therefore there was nothing in HCA 1876/2011 to stay under s.20 Cap 609. Clause 7 of the 2004 agreement, at best an option to arbitrate, could not be imposed on the separate 2010 settlement. Fujian was not shown to be a clearly more appropriate forum. The defendants' summons is dismissed.
7 Feb 2012

CHUN TAT PAPER CO LTD v. WONG IP CHENG AND ANOTHER

Citation

CHUN TAT PAPER CO LTD v. WONG IP CHENG AND ANOTHER
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ201/2011

The judge concluded there was compelling circumstantial and commercial evidence that the equitable charge had been discharged prior to later legal charge and mortgage and that defendants had adequately answered the Requisition, but because the appeal could not be said to have no reasonable prospect of success given evidential standards and competing limitation arguments the court granted leave to appeal.
1 Dec 2011

LI SHU CHUNG v. HONG KONG PAK TAT TRADING CO

Citation

LI SHU CHUNG v. HONG KONG PAK TAT TRADING CO
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1928/2011

The court found the petitioning creditor established a prima facie claim arising from the unpaid purchase price for Shenzhen Lianda shares and the Company failed to demonstrate a bona fide defence on substantial grounds; jurisdiction existed because the company was registered under Part XI, directors and petitioner resident in Hong Kong and assets could be realized by a Hong Kong liquidator; accordingly a winding-up order was made.