Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Delay/want of prosecution

Legal area

Court

21 Aug 2018

CHINA RAILWAY INVESTMENTS GROUP (HONG KONG) LTD v. ETERNITY PROFIT INVESTMENTS LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 1928
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA701/2013

The Court held the RSC pleads the same November 2006 agreement and substantially the same facts as the SOC so it did not introduce a new cause of action under s 35(3) Limitation Ordinance; the RSC was not an abuse of process nor should the writ be struck out for delay because the delay, though inordinate, caused no demonstrated prejudice and there was no contumelious conduct; accordingly leave to amend was granted and the striking out application dismissed, with specific costs and filing directions.
19 Jul 2011

HE KEN AND OTHERS v. The Personal Representative of the Estate of TANG WAH also known as TANG WAH KEE, deceased

Citation

HE KEN AND OTHERS v. The Personal Representative of the Estate of TANG WAH also known as TANG WAH KEE, deceased
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA66/2000

The dismissal of the defendant's summons for want of prosecution was correctly refused: although there was serious and partly inexcusable delay, there was no intentional or contumelious delay and no substantial prejudice that would justify the extreme sanction of dismissal; the court must apply the CPR's overriding objective and use proportionate remedies and available alternative sanctions and directions to enable a fair trial, therefore Master Levy's decision and directions were upheld.
15 Jun 2011

LEE KWOK PIU v. MATCH POWER INVESTMENT LTD

Citation

LEE KWOK PIU v. MATCH POWER INVESTMENT LTD
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ5464/2009

The judge found that the eight-month period between the earliest possible limitation expiry and service was satisfactorily explained by awaiting related proceedings and appeal, by active preparation of pleadings and by serving within 12 months; the delay was not inordinate or inexcusable post-CJR, there was no warehousing of proceedings of a kind to justify strike out, and therefore, as a matter of discretion, the applications to strike out for abuse of process were dismissed.
5 Feb 2009

TSUI CHI KEUNG AND ANOTHER v. HUI FU KWOK

Citation

TSUI CHI KEUNG AND ANOTHER v. HUI FU KWOK
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA6812/1993

The court found the cooperation agreement did not impose an obligation on the plaintiffs to pay the land premium prior to the deadline, the defendant failed to acquire title by the deadline and the Letter of Satisfaction was issued late; given the 17 year delay and absence of urgency specific performance was refused; the appropriate remedy was rescission of the first sale and purchase agreement with restitution of the $600,000 deposit plus interest and costs.
19 Aug 2008

LOYAL TECHNOLOGY CO LTD v. ARTLIGHT ELECTRICAL MANUFACTURING CO LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

LOYAL TECHNOLOGY CO LTD v. ARTLIGHT ELECTRICAL MANUFACTURING CO LTD AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA15596/1999

The dismissal application failed because although the overall delay was inordinate and plaintiff was blameworthy for parts of it, the defendants did not demonstrate that the delay caused such prejudice that a fair trial was impossible; accordingly the court refused to dismiss and granted leave to file expert reports and an extension to set down.
9 Feb 2007

MIRUVOR LTD v. PANAMA-GLOBE STEAMER LINES S.A. AND OTHERS

Citation

MIRUVOR LTD v. PANAMA-GLOBE STEAMER LINES S.A. AND OTHERS
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV226/2006

Filing a defence that expressly reserves the defendant's right to challenge jurisdiction does not of itself constitute a submission to jurisdiction or waiver; Order 12 rule 8 must be applied by asking whether the defendant's conduct was unequivocal acceptance of jurisdiction, and here it was not, so the defendant's jurisdictional challenge was not barred and the appeal succeeds.
10 Feb 1971

MOK LAI KWAN v. LUN LAI TIN

Citation

MOK LAI KWAN v. LUN LAI TIN
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA474/1953

The court preferred the defendant's evidence, found the defendant paid the whole purchase price and there was no common intention or evidence of joint ownership, and held the July 6, 1950 receipt was a clear, informed release of all claims by the plaintiff; non est factum failed and the release barred the plaintiff's claim, hence judgment for the defendant with costs.

Hong Kong Case Law

CHINA RAILWAY INVESTMENTS GROUP (HONG KONG) LTD v. ETERNITY PROFIT INVESTMENTS LTD AND ANOTHER

HE KEN AND OTHERS v. The Personal Representative of the Estate of TANG WAH also known as TANG WAH KEE, deceased

LEE KWOK PIU v. MATCH POWER INVESTMENT LTD

TSUI CHI KEUNG AND ANOTHER v. HUI FU KWOK

LOYAL TECHNOLOGY CO LTD v. ARTLIGHT ELECTRICAL MANUFACTURING CO LTD AND ANOTHER

MIRUVOR LTD v. PANAMA-GLOBE STEAMER LINES S.A. AND OTHERS

MOK LAI KWAN v. LUN LAI TIN