Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Vacating trial dates

Legal area

Court

29 Jun 2023

ETERNAL WEALTH HOLDINGS LTD AND OTHERS v. ORIENTAL SUPREME (HK) LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 1890
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1605/2017

The application to vacate the trial dates is allowed because on the balance of probabilities the 2nd defendant's recent surgeries, ongoing heavy pain medication and pending surgery materially impair his ability to give effective oral evidence, his testimony is central as the sole defendant witness, and the prejudice of a 7½ month adjournment to the plaintiffs is outweighed by the unfairness of forcing him to testify in his medical condition; these facts constitute exceptional circumstances justifying vacatur and rescheduling of the trial to 6 May 2024.
29 Aug 2022

深圳正高金屬製品有限公司 v. IU HO CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING CO LTD

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 2685
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCT33/2019

Leave to discontinue was granted and the defendant ordered to pay the plaintiff's costs because the plaintiff satisfied the threshold 'good reason' and further demonstrated exceptional circumstances justifying departure from the general rule: the defendant had effectively abandoned participation, the joint liability expert supported the plaintiff such that plaintiff would likely succeed at trial, and any judgment would likely be unenforceable (an empty judgment), making discontinuance with an award of costs to the plaintiff fair and just; consequently the $600,000 security for costs paid into…
31 Jan 2022

HOSSAIN MD FARUK v. KHAN, FAQERGUL (簡誠諾) formerly known as KHAN, WAJID t/a PESHAWAR AUTO DISMENTLING & GENERAL TRADING CO

Citation

[2022] HKDC 125
Court

District Court
Case number

DCEC1221/2017

The respondent failed to show exceptional circumstances or to take reasonable steps to mitigate prejudice by promptly applying for leave to give evidence by VCF after the flight ban; milestone trial dates fixed long in advance should not be vacated absent most exceptional circumstances; therefore the summons to vacate the trial dates is dismissed.
23 Mar 2018

CHEUNG HING v. WAH FUNG FOREST RESOURCES LTD

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 2133
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP3/2016

The application to hear HCMP 3/2016 together with the consolidated HCA actions was refused because it was brought too late, would unjustifiably prejudice the plaintiff in HCMP by vacating a fixed trial date, there were insufficient overlapping issues to warrant consolidation and no exceptional circumstances existed to displace the trial timetable.
22 Mar 2016

VELATEL GLOBAL COMMUNICATIONS INC AND ANOTHER v. CHINACOMM LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

VELATEL GLOBAL COMMUNICATIONS INC AND ANOTHER v. CHINACOMM LTD AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1978/2011

The summons to vacate trial dates was dismissed because the applicant failed to provide credible first‑hand or documentary evidence of unavailability, delayed informing his solicitors, did not attempt available alternatives such as video‑link or letters of request, and the adjournment would cause substantial prejudice to the plaintiffs given the significant sums at stake and prior findings of dissipation; consequently leave to adduce a new witness statement was refused and costs were awarded to the plaintiffs.
1 Sept 2011

ART MASTER INVESTMENT LTD v. NG WING KA AND ANOTHER

Citation

ART MASTER INVESTMENT LTD v. NG WING KA AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA646/2011

Because receivers were appointed for AMI, the central issues (notably the legality of the two loan transactions) are core to both actions and the risk of duplication and inconsistent findings coupled with the need for efficient adjudication constitute exceptional circumstances; therefore the derivative claims in the first action must be stayed, the actions tried together or consecutively with evidence standing in both, and the fixed trial dates for the first action vacated.
21 Jan 2011

TSOI YIU CHUNG v. ING LIFE INSURANCE CO (BERMUDA) LTD formerly known as AETNA LIFE INSURANCE CO (BERMUDA) LTD

Citation

TSOI YIU CHUNG v. ING LIFE INSURANCE CO (BERMUDA) LTD formerly known as AETNA LIFE INSURANCE CO (BERMUDA) LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2447/2007

Despite the serious and inexcusable delay, the court allowed the re-amendment because the plaintiff had been the victim of a serious fraud by the defendant's agent and the proposed amendments materially strengthened the case; balancing prejudice to the defendant against the risk of denying the plaintiff a substantive remedy, the court concluded justice required permitting the re-amendment but vacating the trial and imposing costs consequences on the plaintiff.
28 Jun 2010

HUANG NEERACHA V. OSIM (HK) CO. LTD

Citation

HUANG NEERACHA V. OSIM (HK) CO. LTD
Court

District Court
Case number

DCPI1885/2009

The plaintiff's third, belated application for legal aid was inordinate and inexcusable, did not reasonably explain the delay, and therefore did not constitute exceptional circumstances under O.25 r.3; accordingly the automatic legal aid stay was uplifted and the plaintiff's application to vacate trial dates was refused. The defendant's late application to file an answer was the defendant's own oversight and was refused and expunged.
18 Feb 2006

MAGIC SCORE LTD v. THE HONGKONG AND SHANGHAI BANKING CORPORATION LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

MAGIC SCORE LTD v. THE HONGKONG AND SHANGHAI BANKING CORPORATION LTD AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA11077/1994

Refusal of a stay but exercise of case management discretion to vacate and re‑fix Part II trial dates to March 2007 was justified by the combination of a pending appeal likely to provide guidance, the complexity and breadth of Part II beyond simple quantum, significant estimated irrecoverable costs, recusal of the trial judge, and outstanding interlocutory issues; costs of the application ordered in the cause of Part II; security for costs not decided and further written submissions directed.
21 Jun 1991

RICHARDSON GREENSHIELDS OF CANADA (PACIFIC) LTD v. TSE YIM

Citation

RICHARDSON GREENSHIELDS OF CANADA (PACIFIC) LTD v. TSE YIM
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV77/1991

The Court held there was no error of law or principle in Kaplan J's exercise of discretion: the refused interrogatories were either irrelevant to the issues joined or oppressive/fishing, and the judge did not err in refusing to vacate the fixed trial dates; appellate interference was unwarranted.