Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Extension of writ

Legal area

Court

15 Aug 2024

CHINA HUISHAN DAIRY HOLDINGS COMPANY LTD (IN PROVISIONAL LIQUIDATION) AND OTHERS v. KPMG (A FIRM) AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 1494
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA745/2020

The court held there was no material non-disclosure and there existed good reasons to extend the writ: the plaintiffs adequately disclosed limitation issues (claims were category 1 or 2), the Deloitte Advisory engagements were of different scope and did not supply material information relevant to the FY2014 audit claims, and access to mainland audit working papers was reasonably necessary and attempts to obtain alternative evidence justified the extension. Accordingly the Extension Order was properly made and the defendants' summonses were dismissed.
4 Mar 2022

HALLER AG AND ANOTHER v. HALLER AG AND OTHERS

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 652
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2988/2018

Summons dismissed. The court held plaintiffs validly relied on the 'necessary or proper party' gateway to serve D2 out of jurisdiction and the Service Out Order and 1st Extension Order were not tainted by material non-disclosure; there was material non-disclosure in respect of the 2nd Extension Order but the court exercised discretion to re-grant the extension on the same terms while awarding indemnity costs for re-grant; there was no prima facie case that the CIETAC arbitration clause existed such as to mandate a stay under s.20 AO; and Hong Kong is the clearly appropriate forum for trial be…
8 Apr 2021

CHINA METAL RECYCLING (HOLDINGS) LTD (IN LIQUIDATION) AND ANOTHER v. UBS AG AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 918
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1348/2019

The court held the plaintiffs had shown a good arguable case that UBS Europe SE was a necessary or proper party under O.11 r.1(1)(c), that there are serious issues to be tried on attribution of AG's knowledge to Limited and on the limitation question, and that renewal of the writ was justified; accordingly the 2nd defendant's summons to set aside service out and to discharge the extension was dismissed.
22 Jan 2020

CHAN HON, the administrator of the estate of POON LAI MING, deceased v. BAYER HEALTHCARE LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 255
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCPI32/2016

The Service Out Order was set aside for material non-disclosure in the ex parte application; alternatively the 2nd and 3rd defendants had submitted to the court's jurisdiction at the Checklist Review hearing and thereby waived earlier irregularities; leave to appeal was granted because the issue of case management as relevant to submission to jurisdiction is novel and has a reasonable prospect of success; the application to vary the costs order nisi was refused and the court exercised its discretion to order the 2nd and 3rd defendants to pay the plaintiff's costs to be taxed with certificate…
5 Sept 2019

CHINA MEDICAL TECHNOLOGIES, INC. (IN LIQUIDATION) v. THE BANK OF EAST ASIA, LTD

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 2143
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2449/2014

The Extension Order was set aside because, on binding authority in the related BOC decisions, the Liquidators had no good reasons for the extension and had materially failed to disclose and had misrepresented the limitation position (notably the Harris J Decision); BEA had not waived its right to challenge the Extension Order; accordingly service of the Writ is set aside and the action is dismissed.
2 Apr 2019

CHINA MEDICAL TECHNOLOGIES, INC. (In liquidation) v. BANK OF CHINA (HONG KONG) LTD

Citation

[2019] HKCA 402
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV320/2018

The Extension Order was set aside because objectively there were no good reasons at the time to extend the writ and because the applicant’s affidavits contained material misstatements/non‑disclosure about Harris J’s s221 decision and the limitation position which misled the Master; the continuing duty of disclosure applies to ex parte extension applications; the appeal was dismissed on the merits; although Section 14AA leave was required the Court granted leave in the interest of justice and ordered the Plaintiff to pay the Defendant’s costs on the leave issue.
27 Mar 2019

AMADEAUS INVESTMENT LTD v. Dr. LIN KAO KUN

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 797
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2379/2015

The court held plaintiff established matters capable of amounting to good reason for a 12‑month renewal because defendant's address was genuinely uncertain and reasonable steps (investigations and attempts in related proceedings) had been taken; Clause 9.2's applicability to writ service was unclear and potentially invalid given the Mainland–Hong Kong Arrangement, and there was no material non-disclosure in the ex parte affidavit; accordingly the exercise of discretion to extend the writ was justified and the defendant's appeal was dismissed.
15 Oct 2018

AMADEAUS INVESTMENT LTD v. DR LIN KAO KUN

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 2343
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2379/2015

Master K. Lo found that the plaintiff demonstrated good reason for extension based on credible evidence of failed attempts to serve the defendant at the Shanghai address and investigative results indicating the defendant could not be located there; clause 9.2 was not a contractual method of service for originating process and thus did not render service unnecessary; balancing the factors at the discretionary stage (category 2 case, personal service effected within one month of expiry, first extension application, prejudice to plaintiff if refused) justified upholding the ex parte extension an…
8 Feb 2017

ENRICH FUTURE LTD AND OTHERS v. DELOITTE TOUCHE TOHMATSU (a firm)

Citation

ENRICH FUTURE LTD AND OTHERS v. DELOITTE TOUCHE TOHMATSU (a firm)
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCL10/2011

The court declined to order discovery because the references in the Yen affidavits did not constitute direct references to the specific documents sought, the production was not necessary for the fair disposal of the setting aside application nor for saving costs under O 24 r 13, many documents were privileged or non-existent, and ordering disclosure would be disproportionate and oppressive; accordingly the summons for discovery was dismissed and costs were ordered against the defendant.
27 Feb 2014

SMY (HONG KONG) LTD v. THE OWNERS AND/OR DEMISE CHARACTERS OF THE SHIP OR VESSEL “SHUN AN”

Citation

SMY (HONG KONG) LTD v. THE OWNERS AND/OR DEMISE CHARACTERS OF THE SHIP OR VESSEL “SHUN AN”
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAJ24/2012

Application to extend the writ was dismissed because the plaintiff failed to satisfy the first‑stage requirement of demonstrating good reason: it did not establish impossibility of service for the relevant 2013 visits and its withholding of service to await arbitration or save costs was a deliberate decision not amounting to a proper ground for renewal; accordingly discretion to extend was not engaged.