Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Abandonment of claim

Legal area

Court

10 Oct 2024

LI JIA HENG v. GOLDEN WORLD MOTORS (INTERNATIONAL) LTD

Citation

[2024] HKDC 1679
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ2932/2020

Because the contractual claim and the unjust enrichment claim substantially overlapped such that no significant incremental time or expense was caused by the abandonment, and because GWM failed to demonstrate any material increase in length or cost from issues raised by the court or from the amendment application (the latter already addressed), there was no principled basis to vary the costs order nisi; therefore the summons was dismissed and the original costs nisi made absolute.
29 Jul 2016

RUSSELL PETER BROWN AND OTHERS v. EDWARD EUGENE LEHMAN

Citation

RUSSELL PETER BROWN AND OTHERS v. EDWARD EUGENE LEHMAN
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV119/2012

The default judgment was entered in breach of RHC Order 13 because the writ included a claim for a permanent injunction which had not been expressly and finally abandoned; Miss Greene's affidavit did not amount to such abandonment; accordingly the court lacked jurisdiction to enter the default judgment and it must be set aside.
28 May 2012

RUSSELL PETER BROWN AND OTHERS v. EDWARD EUGENE LEHMAN

Citation

RUSSELL PETER BROWN AND OTHERS v. EDWARD EUGENE LEHMAN
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA959/2010

The defendant's application for leave to appeal was dismissed because the court accepted that the plaintiffs had abandoned the claim for a permanent injunction by the affidavit of Miss Greene, meaning the defendant had no reasonable prospect of success on appeal under the applicable test; accordingly leave to appeal was refused and costs were ordered against the defendant.
12 Jul 2007

LAU, WILLIAM JOHN v. WAN, YUK LIN, ALISON AND OTHERS

Citation

LAU, WILLIAM JOHN v. WAN, YUK LIN, ALISON AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1255/2006

Although the plaintiff had a theoretical right to amend the writ before service, his conduct in informing defendants of the writ without serving it and his subsequent abandonment of claims against the 5th–7th defendants justified the strike-out action and the confirmation of the existing costs order; accordingly the order nisi on costs is made absolute and costs of the hearing are to be in the cause.
26 Apr 2007

FONG CHUNG MAU v. WONG CHUNG TAK RICHARD AND ANOTHER

Citation

FONG CHUNG MAU v. WONG CHUNG TAK RICHARD AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1096/2005

Plaintiff did not abandon his claim against the 1st Defendant by abandoning certain causes of action; the proposed re-amendment to plead an oral agreement and total failure of consideration is permitted because it relies on the same underlying events, does not change the action's substance, and any prejudice to the 1st Defendant can be compensated by costs; accordingly leave to re-amend is granted and orders nisi for costs are made in favour of the 1st Defendant.
17 Feb 2006

KING ROYAL LTD v. LAM KWAN YUK

Citation

KING ROYAL LTD v. LAM KWAN YUK
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV140/2005

The plaintiff was not entitled to recover its costs because its notice of acceptance did not abandon all other causes of action so Order 62 r10(2) was not engaged; payment into court did not amount to an admission; the court could not properly exercise inherent jurisdiction to award costs in absence of adjudication and with the defendant's counterclaim unresolved; consequently the District Court order awarding costs to the plaintiff was set aside.
7 Jul 2005

OAKSHORSE FARM CORPORATION v. YAU FOOK PING

Citation

OAKSHORSE FARM CORPORATION v. YAU FOOK PING
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA425/2002

Although elements of success lay with both parties, the counterclaim was abandoned and the defendant's evidence had parts rejected; after assessing time spent and offsetting the parties' wins and losses, the court found the reasonable outcome was to make the order nisi absolute that each party bear their own costs.
16 Mar 2005

UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD v. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD v. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCT2/2005

The Arbitrator was not obviously or seriously wrong: his construction of the slip phrase was proper having regard to the words and market practice; that construction supported rectification of condition 8; the findings that Hyundai did not affirm or abandon its rights were factual and not open to appellate re-litigation; and condition 10 was properly construed as not encompassing a claim for premium refund, therefore leave to appeal was refused.
2 Jun 1999

Terraform Engineering Co. Ltd. v. Full Wealth Investment Ltd.

Citation

Terraform Engineering Co. Ltd. v. Full Wealth Investment Ltd.
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV251/1998

The Court dismissed the appellant's appeal holding the arbitrator erred in law by purporting to grant an extension of time which the contract did not authorize; the claimant had abandoned its breach claim at arbitration and could not resurrect it on appeal; the Supplemental Agreement fixed completion at 16 January 1996 and imposed liquidated damages, so the arbitrator's award could not stand; accordingly the Court upheld the lower court's setting aside of the award and dismissed the appeal with costs ordered to the respondent.
5 Dec 1986

KOMALA DECCOF AND CO. S.A. AND OTHERS v. PERUSAHAAN PERTAMBANGAN MINYAK DAN GAS BUMI NEGARA (PERTAMINA)

Citation

KOMALA DECCOF AND CO. S.A. AND OTHERS v. PERUSAHAAN PERTAMBANGAN MINYAK DAN GAS BUMI NEGARA (PERTAMINA)
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA960/1980

The court exercised its discretion to allow the 2nd plaintiff to re-re-amend the re-amended statement of claim to include particulars of additional expenses arising from the defendants delay (pursuant to clause 7 and s39 Sale of Goods Ordinance), holding that the endorsement on the writ may be considered alongside the statement of claim and that the amendments related to the same or substantially the same facts; amendments were allowed in part where certain items conceded to be non-delay/damages for non-acceptance were disallowed.