Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Abridgement of time

Legal area

Court

2 Jan 2025

SUCCESS LANE DEVELOPMENT LTD v. FERGURSON HONG KONG LTD t/a NEW WORLD MILLENNIUM HONG KONG HOTEL

Citation

[2025] HKDC 17
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ2191/2023

Summons dismissed: time to serve was not abridged because urgency was self-induced; on merits the alleged illegality was neither pleaded with necessary considerations under Monat nor of sufficient gravity to render the long-stay agreement unenforceable (would be overkill), so no stay of execution; director Ms Yung joined for potential personal costs and directed to file evidence and attend a substantive costs hearing.
30 Aug 2007

H & K INVESTMENT LTD v. ANDREW KWONG

Citation

H & K INVESTMENT LTD v. ANDREW KWONG
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV240/2007

The respondent's application for extension and abridgement was dismissed because there was no evidence demonstrating inability to pay within the original 10‑day period; costs follow the event and a gross sum costs order of $6,000 was made.
17 Dec 2004

LO SIU LAN AND ANOTHER v. HONG KONG HOUSING AUTHORITY

Citation

LO SIU LAN AND ANOTHER v. HONG KONG HOUSING AUTHORITY
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FAMP2/2004

The Court has no inherent jurisdiction to abridge statutory time limits where the statute (the Court of Final Appeal Ordinance) prescribes time limits and confers power only to extend time; Rule 70(1) does not allow abridgement of statutory deadlines; accordingly the Authority's application to abridge time was dismissed.
30 Aug 1999

TERENCE HO PUI TIN v. WAH NAM GROUP LTD.

Citation

TERENCE HO PUI TIN v. WAH NAM GROUP LTD.
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP5224/1999

The court ordered inspection under s.121 limited to consolidation working documents and schedules for the consolidated balance sheet and profit and loss account for the year ended 31 December 1998 and to the specified accounting records (general ledger, sub-ledgers, bank books, fixed asset register, bank statements, payroll, receipt/payment/journal vouchers and monthly management accounts for 1 Jan 1998–31 Dec 1998 and 1 Jan 1999–2 Aug 1999), refused inspection of subsidiaries' books per se and refused to treat contracts, agreements and minutes as "books of account" for the purposes of s.121;…
27 Oct 1998

KEEN LLOYD LTD AND OTHERS v. SAM LEE LIGHTING AND TRANSPORT CO LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

KEEN LLOYD LTD AND OTHERS v. SAM LEE LIGHTING AND TRANSPORT CO LTD AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCL166/1993

The court refused to abridge the statutory/Rule notice period because the plaintiffs produced no evidential basis and fairness required giving defendants the full one month to investigate and decide on procedural responses; the summons to amend was adjourned sine die (liberty to restore) because it antedated the abridgement application and risked invalidity if pursued prematurely.

Hong Kong Case Law

SUCCESS LANE DEVELOPMENT LTD v. FERGURSON HONG KONG LTD t/a NEW WORLD MILLENNIUM HONG KONG HOTEL

H & K INVESTMENT LTD v. ANDREW KWONG

LO SIU LAN AND ANOTHER v. HONG KONG HOUSING AUTHORITY

TERENCE HO PUI TIN v. WAH NAM GROUP LTD.

KEEN LLOYD LTD AND OTHERS v. SAM LEE LIGHTING AND TRANSPORT CO LTD AND OTHERS