Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Delay and want of prosecution

Legal area

Court

13 Nov 2025

CONTEH ESSA v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 5213
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1261/2020

The application for an extension of time is dismissed because the applicant failed to identify any proposed grounds of appeal and did not attend hearings; even assuming a reasonable explanation for the short (10‑day) delay, there is no prospect of success of the intended appeal and the applicant's want of prosecution justified dismissal.
13 Nov 2025

DAO XUAN TRUNG v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 5212
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1135/2020

Application dismissed because the applicant failed to attend the hearing (want of prosecution) and no specific or arguable ground of appeal was identified; consequently, even if the short delay were excused, the appeal had no prospect of success.
19 Nov 2021

CHUNG PUI TONG v. QIAN ZHEN

Citation

[2021] HKCA 1733
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV68/2020

The Court refused to entertain the direct application for a stay because the plaintiff failed to demonstrate special circumstances under Order 59 r 14(4) making it impossible or impracticable to apply to the judge below, compounded by inordinate unjustified delay and weak prospects of success; in any event the exercise of discretion would have been to dismiss the stay and order costs against the plaintiff.
8 Nov 2021

SUM WING SUNG v. KWOK WING YAN VIVIAN

Citation

[2021] HKDC 1390
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ1264/2017

The court refused to vary the costs order nisi because the defendant failed to show that the plaintiff acted dishonestly or unreasonably to a degree warranting departure from the general rule that costs follow the event; the defendant could have protected her costs position by making a sanctioned payment, the main contested issues concerned liability not quantum, the alleged delay did not demonstrably cause additional costs and the defendant did not progress the action, and certificate for counsel was justified given expert evidence.
30 Mar 2015

CHAN KAM CHUEN v. SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT

Citation

CHAN KAM CHUEN v. SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV321/2001

The Lands Tribunal has no jurisdiction to award ex gratia payments because ex gratia allowances are administrative policy outside the statutory compensation regime established by the Railways Ordinance and Lands Resumption Ordinance; claims under s34 RO are limited to statutory compensation assessed according to the LRO, therefore the applicant's claim for ex gratia payment must be dismissed.
4 May 2005

INGO INTERNATIONAL LTD v. CANADIAN EASTERN LIFE ASSURANCE LTD

Citation

INGO INTERNATIONAL LTD v. CANADIAN EASTERN LIFE ASSURANCE LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA19675/1999

The Masters order for security for costs (HK$900,000 within 32 days failing which proceedings to be stayed) was justified and is confirmed: the plaintiffs prolonged and inexcusable delay, combined with material evidential indications of misrepresentation and nondisclosure (assignment of a prior policy and undisclosed substantial debts) created a high degree of probability of failure and sufficient risk of unrecoverable costs to warrant security; the plaintiff failed to prove inability to obtain funding and admissions by its solicitors and pleadings implied available financial backing.
29 Nov 2000

RE H. Y. & H. T. LEE BROTHERS AND CO. LTD.

Citation

RE H. Y. & H. T. LEE BROTHERS AND CO. LTD.
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV328/1999

The applications were dismissed: the petitioner’s prolonged and unexplained delay in prosecuting the appeals made a stay of taxation inappropriate, and there was insufficient risk that the respondents (notably T. Y. Lee) would be unable to repay taxed costs if the appeals succeed to justify a stay of execution.
9 Nov 1999

MOHAWK INC. AND OTHERS v. SWIRE INSURANCE LTD. and WILLIS FABER (FAR EAST) LTD. (Third Party)

Citation

MOHAWK INC. AND OTHERS v. SWIRE INSURANCE LTD. and WILLIS FABER (FAR EAST) LTD. (Third Party)
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCL81/1987

The Court has jurisdiction to reopen the May 1995 interlocutory security order because there has been a sufficient change of circumstances—primarily inordinate delay and consequent increase in costs—warranting reconsideration; exercising its discretion accordingly, the Court ordered further security of HK$2,200,000 to be provided within 28 days (failure to do so to result in a stay) and awarded the costs of the application to the Defendant.
27 Jul 1999

NGAN CHING PAI v. DOCTOR CHAN WAI LAM WILLIAM AND OTHERS

Citation

NGAN CHING PAI v. DOCTOR CHAN WAI LAM WILLIAM AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA10002/1991

Impecuniosity does not justify highly inordinate delay when that delay has caused such prejudice to the defendants that they cannot fairly defend the case; therefore the claim must be struck out for want of prosecution.
29 Apr 1982

WONG PAK alias YEE YICK POY v. NG PO CHUI

Citation

WONG PAK alias YEE YICK POY v. NG PO CHUI
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA5463/1981

The appeal was dismissed because, although there was an arguable defence (contributory negligence), the insurer and defendant displayed inexcusable delay and lack of competence in failing to act to prevent interlocutory judgment; setting the judgment aside would cause irreparable prejudice to a fair trial by further staling witness memory and the court exercised its discretion against granting relief despite the arguable defence.