Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Delay in bringing application

Legal area

Court

5 May 2016

CRANE WORLD ASIA PTE LTD v. HONTRADE ENGINEERING LTD

Citation

CRANE WORLD ASIA PTE LTD v. HONTRADE ENGINEERING LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA462/2014

The plaintiff was found ordinarily resident outside Hong Kong (central management in Singapore); although reciprocal enforcement in Singapore exists and the plaintiff has some Hong Kong assets, those assets are not of a fixed or readily realizable nature and the defendant delayed in bringing the application such that ordering security would not be just or cost-effective; therefore the application for security for costs was refused; costs nisi awarded to the plaintiff in sum HK$90,000.
21 Jan 2016

SUM CHEUNG WAI v. TSUI HIN YUET

Citation

SUM CHEUNG WAI v. TSUI HIN YUET
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA640/2014

The summons was dismissed because the defendant provided no satisfactory explanation for the delay in making a formal application, the proposed evidence lacked sufficient relevance, and its admission would unfairly embarrass the plaintiff by entangling him in detailed accounting matters; costs of the application were awarded to the plaintiff.
20 Jan 2014

RE CHENG KAN YUNG

Citation

RE CHENG KAN YUNG
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCB7482/2003

The application was dismissed because the applicant offered no adequate explanation for the five-year delay which amounted to an abuse of process, and because he failed to prove that the 2008 release order was obtained by fraud or by suppression or concealment of material fact as required by section 94(3); many of the complaints had already been litigated, rendering the application vexatious.
24 Oct 2007

ATHANASIOS KONDYLIS v. KIM\'S YACHT CO LTD

Citation

ATHANASIOS KONDYLIS v. KIM\'S YACHT CO LTD
Court

District Court
Case number

DCEC918/2005

Given the applicant's ordinary residence overseas and lack of substantial assets in Hong Kong, the court exercised its discretion to order security for costs; the respondent's delay and tactical timing did not outweigh the factors in favour of security, the applicant's prospects were not shown to have a clear high degree of probability of success, and the respondent's claimed amount was excessive so the appropriate amount was fixed at HK$150,000.

Hong Kong Case Law

CRANE WORLD ASIA PTE LTD v. HONTRADE ENGINEERING LTD

SUM CHEUNG WAI v. TSUI HIN YUET

RE CHENG KAN YUNG

ATHANASIOS KONDYLIS v. KIM\'S YACHT CO LTD