Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Without prejudice rule

Legal area

Court

19 Jul 2022

TSANG KIN CHUNG TERRY v. WONG CHUNG MANG JONAH AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2022] HKCA 1080
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV250/2021

The defendants failed to meet the high threshold required for leave under the 'or otherwise' limb of s22(1)(b) HKCFAO because their grounds were without merit: their silence constituted admission of liability so repayment discussions were not 'without prejudice', they produced no evidence of present means to pay, and they did not demonstrate highly exceptional circumstances or sufficient merits to overturn the interlocutory security for costs order; accordingly leave is refused and the security order stands.
7 Mar 2022

TSANG KIN CHUNG TERRY v. WONG CHUNG MANG JONAH AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2022] HKCA 377
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV250/2021

Security for costs in the sum of $300,000 was ordered because the defendants were shown to be impecunious and there was a real risk the plaintiff would encounter difficulty and expense enforcing any costs order; the defendants' asserted merits did not outweigh the need for security.
27 Oct 2021

FINE RIGHT ENTERPRISE LTD v. WEALTH FINE LTD

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 3242
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA524/2018

The court granted the defendant leave to amend to remove the contested references and extended filing deadlines, dispensed with service of the amended pleading, and declined to make any order as to costs because both parties contributed to the situation and the defendant acted promptly to offer corrective amendments.
27 Oct 2017

POBEN CONSULTANTS LTD AND OTHERS v. THE CLEARWATER BAY GOLF & COUNTRY CLUB

Citation

POBEN CONSULTANTS LTD AND OTHERS v. THE CLEARWATER BAY GOLF & COUNTRY CLUB
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP2332/2016

On an objective assessment of the letter as a whole, it contained no negotiating content, offers or compromise and was merely an assertion of the defendant's defence; therefore it was not a without prejudice communication and the application to expunge it was dismissed.
20 Jan 2017

KWAI TAK MING v. K.S. CAPITAL ONE LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

KWAI TAK MING v. K.S. CAPITAL ONE LTD AND OTHERS
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV132/2016

The 1st defendant was found impecunious; its bank balance and undertaking were insufficient given the likely costs exposure; the presence of co-appellants without substantive evidence of means did not preclude ordering security; accordingly the court exercised its discretion to order security for costs and fixed the amount and timeframe (order for $800,000 payable within 14 days) and taxed costs for the summons.
11 Jun 2013

JOEL KAI THOMAS v. TAO HSIAO SHAN, ALICE

Citation

JOEL KAI THOMAS v. TAO HSIAO SHAN, ALICE
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP209/2011

Counsel's answer to the court created a distorted picture by omitting material information (the First Disclosure Date); that omission was material to the risk of dissipation and to the grant of the Mareva injunction; consequently the intended appeal had no reasonable prospect of success and there was no other reason in the interests of justice to hear it, so leave to appeal was refused and the application dismissed with costs.
27 Sept 2012

NCS CO, LTD v. BAO HARVEST HOLDING LTD

Citation

NCS CO, LTD v. BAO HARVEST HOLDING LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCT31/2012

The application for leave to appeal was dismissed because the court concluded there was no reasonable prospect of success: there was no real risk of dissipation given Bao Harvest's substantial business and Hong Kong bank balance exceeding the claimed US$1.4 million; NCS failed to make or to put evidence of necessary inquiries; material non-disclosures in the ex parte application (including application of without prejudice to the 2nd Statement) justified discharge; and new arguments of inadvertence were not advanced in evidence before the ex parte judge and could not be made on appeal.
6 Sept 2012

NCS CO LTD v. BAO HARVEST HOLDING LTD

Citation

NCS CO LTD v. BAO HARVEST HOLDING LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCT31/2012

The worldwide Mareva injunction was discharged because NCS failed to establish a real risk of dissipation given the defendant's substantial assets and banking facilities in Hong Kong which exceed the claimed amount, and because NCS committed material non-disclosures in its ex parte application (failure to inquire about assets, failure to disclose that the key statement was part of a without prejudice settlement negotiation, and failure to explain the defendant's substantive dispute on quantum), such that the injunction should not have been maintained.
29 Apr 2010

S v. T

Citation

S v. T
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV209/2009

The application to admit the evidence was refused because the primary document was a without prejudice settlement document and other material arose from mediation, which is confidential; unilateral waiver by one party is ineffective and admitting such evidence would undermine the mediation process now endorsed by the court.
26 Mar 2010

LU GUO XIANG v. HONG KONG MING WAH SHIPPING CO LTD

Citation

LU GUO XIANG v. HONG KONG MING WAH SHIPPING CO LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCPI254/2006

The alleged compromise agreement of 6 January 2006 sought to limit the defendant's liability under Clause 17 and therefore constituted a liability issue that should have been raised at the liability trial; it is too late to introduce that inconsistent case post-trial, so the amendment (paragraph 26C(ix)) is disallowed and the defendant may not rely on the alleged compromise; limited discovery ordered with timetable and other discovery adjourned sine die.