Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Delay and conduct

Legal area

Court

29 Oct 2014

PFEIFFER GmbH v. CHEUNG HAY KIT t/a SUN WAI CONSTRUCTION

Citation

PFEIFFER GmbH v. CHEUNG HAY KIT t/a SUN WAI CONSTRUCTION
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV245/2013

The Court of Appeal upheld the judge's exercise of discretion: the judge lawfully departed from the follow‑the‑event rule because the plaintiff pursued a substantial part of its claim (nearly half) that was doomed to fail for lack of evidence and there was an inordinate delay in bringing the claim; those factors, considered under Order 62 and the objectives of Order 1A, justified depriving the plaintiff of half its costs and the appeal was dismissed.
24 Jun 2014

GOOD MARK INDUSTRIAL LTD v. COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE

Citation

GOOD MARK INDUSTRIAL LTD v. COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL88/2012

Costs of the judicial review based on the amended Form 86 are awarded to the respondent and to be paid by the applicant (taxed if not agreed); no order as to costs of the original Form 86 because both parties contributed to delay and the applicant's conduct was inconsistent with Civil Justice Reform, including failure to set a deadline and insufficient use of ADR.
29 Jun 2006

SINOKAWA INVESTMENT (HOLDINGS) LTD v. LI CHUN

Citation

SINOKAWA INVESTMENT (HOLDINGS) LTD v. LI CHUN
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA15641/1999

The defendant adduced cogent evidence (utility bills and witness evidence) that he was not resident at the Convention Plaza address when the writs were inserted in the letterbox and therefore did not have notice; service was irregular and the default judgments should be set aside. However, because the defendant delayed substantially (about four years) after becoming aware of the judgments and had engaged in evasive conduct, the court exercised its residual discretion to set aside the judgments only on terms requiring payment into court within 28 days and conditional costs orders.
10 Jun 1986

STUDIO CICO (a firm) v. YAO KEE TRADING & ENGINEERING CO. (a firm)

Citation

STUDIO CICO (a firm) v. YAO KEE TRADING & ENGINEERING CO. (a firm)
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA5790/1985

The $20 arithmetical error in the judgment was amendable under the slip rule, but the defendant failed to demonstrate a good arguable defence on the merits and his delay and conduct (including failure to act after being informed and after bailiff attendance) militated against setting aside the default judgment; transportation charges may be pursued as a counterclaim but do not justify setting aside the judgment or a set-off at this stage.
27 Oct 1983

LEE WING TAT v. LEE CHAN LO KAI

Citation

LEE WING TAT v. LEE CHAN LO KAI
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMC14/1976

Grant leave to issue notice to apply under s.4(1)(a) and s.4(1)(c) because, despite delay and the applicant's questionable conduct and inadequate disclosure, the substantial disparity in the parties' financial positions gives the wife a seriously arguable case; refuse leave to apply under s.11 in respect of variation of settlements made pursuant to s.6(c) because s.11 does not permit variation of s.6(c) settlements.

Hong Kong Case Law

PFEIFFER GmbH v. CHEUNG HAY KIT t/a SUN WAI CONSTRUCTION

GOOD MARK INDUSTRIAL LTD v. COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE

SINOKAWA INVESTMENT (HOLDINGS) LTD v. LI CHUN

STUDIO CICO (a firm) v. YAO KEE TRADING & ENGINEERING CO. (a firm)

LEE WING TAT v. LEE CHAN LO KAI