Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Delay in seeking relief

Legal area

Court

2 May 2024

SINCERE BRAND MANAGEMENT LTD v. CORTINA WATCH HK LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 1189
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCT51/2023

The court declined to award indemnity costs because the plaintiff's conduct did not meet the threshold for indemnity despite some delay; the costs of the Injunction and Withdrawal Summonses are a discrete set and therefore the plaintiff must pay the defendants' costs, to be taxed on a party and party basis if not agreed, and paid forthwith, with the existing costs order dated 13 July 2023 left undisturbed.
5 Oct 2023

CHINOVATION LEASING LTD v. ZHU LINSHAN AND OTHERS

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 2544
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA985/2021

The court found there are serious issues to be tried both as to whether the Transfer of CEIL was at an undervalue and whether the 16 June 2020 board resolutions and appointments complied with CEIL's Articles; the balance of convenience favoured preserving the status quo because of a real risk of dissipation and uncertain recoverability in damages; the plaintiff's delay and imperfect conduct did not render it unjust to grant interim relief; accordingly interlocutory injunctive relief was granted against Interstellar, LC and Sands with limited provisos and costs ordered to the plaintiff.
2 May 2023

KINGFIELD INVESTMENT DEVELOPMENT LTD v. PAKCO PROPERTY SERVICES LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 1105
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1536/2016

Most of the mandatory relief sought was refused because applicants failed to show the 2016 mechanism was non-functional or that Hang Ngai had refused service or acted incompetently, and because of inordinate delay in seeking variation; the court accepted Kingfield's undertaking to provide a key to Hang Ngai staff and clarified photographic access for Pakco, retained Hang Ngai pending trial, and awarded partial costs to applicants (30%).
14 Nov 2017

劉對林

Citation

劉對林
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP20/2017

The Court refused leave to appeal because the applicant had no realistic prospect of success: the trial judge lawfully exercised discretion in varying maintenance and in fixing the commencement date as 1 November 2016 given the applicant's delay; there was no demonstrable error warranting appellate interference.
26 May 2006

SINOM SHANGHAI IMPORT & EXPORT CO LTD v. EXFIN (INDIA) MINERAL ORE CO PVT LTD

Citation

SINOM SHANGHAI IMPORT & EXPORT CO LTD v. EXFIN (INDIA) MINERAL ORE CO PVT LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCT45/2006

The ex parte Mareva injunction was refused because the plaintiff's approximately one month delay and ongoing settlement discussions, together with indications that the paying bank would shortly pay the defendant and that the defendant had retained Hong Kong solicitors, eliminated the necessary urgency for ex parte relief; consequently the matter should proceed inter partes or at least ex parte on notice.
4 Apr 2006

KO SIN YUN v. CHAN CHUEN

Citation

KO SIN YUN v. CHAN CHUEN
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ6693/2004

Leave to appeal was refused because the judge correctly found the judgment to be regular, the defendant delayed nine months before applying to set it aside, and no demonstrable flaw in the exercise of judicial discretion on costs was shown to justify departing from the normal practice that the applicant bears costs.
9 Sept 2005

KARREX (HONG KONG) LTD v. MAIA SABINE WIEST AND ANOTHER

Citation

KARREX (HONG KONG) LTD v. MAIA SABINE WIEST AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1725/2005

The court held that there was insufficient urgency to justify the ex parte order because any urgency was caused by the plaintiff's unexplained delay and the plaintiff's assertion of imminent production of infringing copies was unsupported by evidence; accordingly the ex parte order should be discharged and certain paragraphs should not be continued.
4 Mar 2004

CHINA STATE CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING (HONG KONG) LTD v. HO SIU PO

Citation

CHINA STATE CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING (HONG KONG) LTD v. HO SIU PO
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCT57/2003

Leave to set aside the default judgment was refused because the defendant failed to demonstrate a reasonable prospect of success (no particularised affidavit evidence) and failed to explain the nearly seven-month delay, so the court could not exercise its discretion in his favor.
8 Sept 2001

LA MODE, INC. v. WANG TAI ENTERPRISE (INTERNATIONAL)DEVELOPMENT LTD. AND OTHERS

Citation

LA MODE, INC. v. WANG TAI ENTERPRISE (INTERNATIONAL)DEVELOPMENT LTD. AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1290/2001

Although the plaintiff established a sufficiently good arguable case based on invoices and account statements, there was insufficient evidence of a real risk of dissipation by the 3rd Defendant; the plaintiff's non‑disclosure regarding a subsidiary's winding up petition was not material; unexplained delay in bringing the application further undermined entitlement to the exceptional Mareva relief; therefore the ex parte Mareva injunction was discharged and the continuation application dismissed.