13 May 2026
The court refused to extend time and struck out the summonses because the applicant's delay of over two months was inordinate, he offered no explanation for the delay, failed to explain or contextualize attached documents, provided no arguable grounds of appeal and did not articulate a clear remedy; therefore extension was not justified under the established discretionary factors.
25 Nov 2019
Because the applicant repeatedly adjourned the petition for nearly 11 months, failed to engage with creditors and sought to use the petition to buy negotiating time thereby demonstrating no intention to obtain a bankruptcy order, the petition constituted an abuse of process and should be withdrawn/dismissed; costs ordered against the applicant to be paid to the Official Receiver and deducted from the deposit.
26 Oct 2017
Because the appellant repeatedly failed to comply with clear court directions, provided no reasonable explanation for prolonged delay and showed no genuine intention to prosecute the appeal, the court exercised its discretion to order filing of the draft appeal book by 9 November 2017 and to dismiss the appeal on 10 November 2017 if the appellant failed to comply, and to order costs to the respondent assessed at HKD 15,370.
15 Jan 2016
The defendant's application to dismiss was dismissed because the court was not satisfied the plaintiffs had unreasonably delayed given the complexity of the foreign accident, the unresolved factual issue of the relationship between the defendant and the Egyptian balloon operator which may require inquest evidence, the writ remained unexpired and the claim was not time‑barred; on balance prejudice to the defendant did not justify dismissal and it was premature to make further adverse orders under Order 12 r8A(2).
16 Jan 2008
The court refused to dismiss the Miscellaneous Proceedings because D4 and D7 have a real and contested stake in the subject money; dismissal would not determine their entitlement and would merely force them to commence fresh proceedings raising the same issues. The undertaking disposing of the Labour Tribunal appeal benefited only the Labour Tribunal claimants (D1 and D2) and does not affect other defendants. Therefore the discretionary remedy of dismissal was not appropriate; instead the plaintiff must proceed and those defendants should seek directions to progress to trial if they wish to p…
12 Apr 2006
The court allowed the appeal and set aside the dismissal because the plaintiffs’ default was not intentional or contumelious, delay was excusable, there was no abuse of process and limitation had not expired; however, having regard to the plaintiffs’ uncertain future finances and the insufficiency of the 2nd plaintiff’s undertaking as sole protection for the 2nd and 3rd defendants, the court ordered security for costs under s.357 Companies Ordinance against the 1st plaintiff in the sum of $600,000, dismissed the 1st defendant’s late application for security and made specified costs orders and…
29 Apr 2003
Recorder Chan held the defendants' summons to dismiss for want of prosecution failed because there was no inordinate and inexcusable delay causative of substantial prejudice and the limitation period had not expired; the proposed amendment changing the alleged date of discovery to May 1998 was refused because it changed the cause of action and caused irremediable prejudice given lapse of time and repairs; other proposed amendments were allowed; costs allocated as set out in the order nisi.
31 Jan 2000
Section 103 preserves continuation after death but the petitioner produced no credible answer to the debtor's established judgment which, together with taxed costs and interest, exceeded the petitioning creditor's claim; combined with an unexplained seven-year delay and irrelevant voluminous evidence, the petition lacked merit and should be dismissed with costs.
18 Jan 2000
The cumulative periods of delay were inordinate and inexcusable and attributable to the plaintiff; the defendant did not acquiesce; the delays caused a real risk of an unfair trial because the dispute depends on oral evidence and witness credibility after a long lapse and two key defence witnesses are abroad and uncontactable; prejudice established and dismissal was necessary and granted.
3 Jan 1994
The court exercised its inherent jurisdiction to dismiss the adjourned summons for interlocutory injunction as an abuse of process because the application had no real prospect of success given the delay and imminence of covenant expiry; separately, the security for costs order under Companies Ordinance s.357 was set aside because the defendants did not produce credible testimony sufficient to show the plaintiff would likely be unable to pay costs.