Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Trial adjournment

Legal area

Court

3 Apr 2025

ANGELA CHEN v. WAI WAI CHEN

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 1615
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAP10/2020

The court vacated the September 2025 trial dates because Vivien had bona fide, reasonably diligent appeals and leave applications which, if successful, would materially affect the scope of evidence and issues at trial; given the appeals could not realistically be heard and decided before the trial and after balancing prejudice (including risk to aged witnesses), the circumstances amounted to exceptional circumstances justifying adjournment and the court exercised its discretion to vacate the trial and order costs in the cause.
20 May 2020

TSANG WOON MING v. LAI KA LIM also known as LAI KAI LIM AND OTHERS

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 891
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCW407/2016

Application refused in respect of Lin and Ho because the application was late, lacked good reason (witnesses could have quarantined after advance notice of GAP expiry), convenience and business commitments do not justify VCF for witnesses whose credibility is central, and VCF would cause prejudice and impair proper assessment of evidence; application granted for Ms Li Biyun because there was accepted evidence she could not travel and practical arrangements for a single VCF witness could be made without causing adjournment or prejudice.
15 Nov 2017

PHILIP SECURITIES (HONG KONG) LTD v. 3i CAPITAL GROUP CORP AND ANOTHER

Citation

PHILIP SECURITIES (HONG KONG) LTD v. 3i CAPITAL GROUP CORP AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1905/2014

The court refused the defendant's late application to amend pleadings because the application was made without any satisfactory explanation or evidence after multiple prior opportunities, the amendments were extensive and risked prejudicing and derailing an imminent trial contrary to CJR objectives; the court also refused specific discovery because the categories sought were overbroad, not shown to exist or be relevant and the application was unacceptably late; costs were ordered against the defendants.
23 Jan 2017

HUNG HING ENGINEERING CO LTD v. HUNG WAI MING AND ANOTHER

Citation

HUNG HING ENGINEERING CO LTD v. HUNG WAI MING AND ANOTHER
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ3959/2014

The court exercised its discretion to allow the defendants to amend their Amended Defence & Counterclaim because doing so would enable determination of the real controversy between the parties, but only on strict terms to mitigate prejudice: defendants must pay into court the full amount claimed by plaintiff (HKD 575,317.12) and pay plaintiff's costs of and thrown away by the amendments and any adjournment; payments are to remain in court pending final disposal; if defendants fail to comply with the payment condition (late or non-payment), the summons to amend will be dismissed and the trial…
25 Nov 2016

INTERPROCOM LTD v. SILVER WINGS TRADING CO LTD

Citation

INTERPROCOM LTD v. SILVER WINGS TRADING CO LTD
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ4383/2012

The court exercised its case management power to allow the late applications because expert evidence on genuineness was material to the central issue, the defendant demonstrated exceptional circumstances and best endeavours to obtain the evidence only recently, and the judge was satisfied that allowing the applications would not cause prejudice to the plaintiff; consequential timetable variations were ordered and costs awarded to the plaintiff for wasted costs.
15 Oct 2014

CHUNG MING YU AND OTHERS v. NEXT MAGAZINE PUBLISHING LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

CHUNG MING YU AND OTHERS v. NEXT MAGAZINE PUBLISHING LTD AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA785/2011

The court granted leave in part to the defendants to file specified supplemental witness statements and to amend the Defence subject to specified redactions and exclusions, but found the applications were late and prejudicial to some extent; to preserve fairness the trial was vacated and the action remitted to a Master for further case management, with costs orders against defendants including assessment for costs thrown away as a result of vacating the trial.
24 Apr 2014

HAU KWAI CHOI AND ANOTHER v. HAU WAI KEUNG

Citation

HAU KWAI CHOI AND ANOTHER v. HAU WAI KEUNG
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ4285/2012

The summons was dismissed because the application was made one day before the scheduled trial and amounted to inordinate and unjustified delay; admission of the late witness statements would inevitably derail the trial and prejudice the plaintiffs, breach prior court orders and Practice Direction 5.2, and the proposed amendments did not properly arise from any admissible new evidence; accordingly no leave was given to file the two late witness statements or to re-amend the pleadings, costs of HKD 38,108 awarded to plaintiffs, and the trial to proceed as scheduled.
22 Apr 2013

PARK LEUNG TAI WOON v. LEUNG TAI SING

Citation

PARK LEUNG TAI WOON v. LEUNG TAI SING
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ953/2011

The summons for leave to re-amend was dismissed because the proposed wholesale and late amendments would have required adjourning the imminent trial, there were no exceptional circumstances to justify that prejudice to trial scheduling, and the delay was avoidable; therefore leave to amend was refused and costs were awarded to the defendant.
16 Sept 2008

YUN KEE KITCHEN LTD v. LUK KWAN AND ANOTHER

Citation

YUN KEE KITCHEN LTD v. LUK KWAN AND ANOTHER
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ90/2007

The application for a stay was refused because the defendants sought a very late amendment, had already been granted a short indulgence which cannot be used to seek further delay, further adjournment would unfairly prejudice the plaintiff, and any wasted costs if the appeal succeeds would be limited and do not justify postponing the trial.
11 Nov 2004

PACIFIC CENTURY REGIONAL v. DEVELOPMENTS LTD ANOTHER

Citation

PACIFIC CENTURY REGIONAL v. DEVELOPMENTS LTD ANOTHER
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV295/2004

On the pleadings as they stood the Deputy High Court Judge was correct: paragraph 22 relied only on termination of the employment agreement and did not raise the additional matters the appellant sought to introduce; consequently the application to vacate the trial date was properly refused and the trial should proceed as fixed.