Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Extensions of time

Legal area

Court

11 Jul 2025

CHOW LILY v. CHOW WAI WAI VIOLET AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 2945
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAP22/2019

The Expert Summons was dismissed because the proposed neurologist report was adduced extremely late without acceptable explanation and without relief from sanction for non-compliance with prior expert directions and an unless order; admitting the report (and consequent expert and factual steps) would risk overrunning a tightly fixed trial timetable and prejudice the trial; consequential amendments by the defendants were refused because parties are bound by prior undertakings and there is no justification for further perfection of pleadings at this late stage.
16 Mar 2021

KH FOUNDATIONS LTD v. CHUN YIP CONSTRUCTION CO LTD

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 682
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCT43/2019

The court granted leave for a single joint quantum expert limited to Questions 1,2 and 6‑8 in Section A of Annex 1 to the Defendant's Submissions and allowed programming experts only to answer Questions 10,11 and 14 of Section B of that Annex; the court refused leave for questions that were unduly wide or outside programming expertise, holding that contract construction, entitlement to extensions of time, and core factual or engineering matters are for the court, factual witnesses, or appropriately qualified technical experts, not programming experts.
16 Sept 2019

N v. C

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 2292
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCT3/2019

The court held the arbitrator did not commit a serious irregularity: the Agreement on Entitlement and the ex‑contract agreement were in play on the pleaded case and evidence, the plaintiff had a reasonable opportunity to address those issues, and the tribunal's finding that contractual time limits and entitlement issues fell away by reason of the parties' agreement/ex‑contract compromise was within the tribunal's powers. The plaintiff's application to set aside or remit the award was dismissed.
15 Mar 2018

WOO CHU v. SHEUNG WAN HSIN KUANG RESTAURANT LTD

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 640
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP2751/2017

The breaches of the Companies Ordinance were found to be inadvertent, caused by audit delays and meeting difficulties, and in the absence of opposition or material prejudice the court exercised its discretion to grant the extensions sought, with minor corrections to errors in the originating summonses and a specified amended date for HCMP 2746.
30 Oct 2014

ME v. A-M G

Citation

ME v. A-M G
Court

Family Court
Case number

FCMC9947/2012

The court construed the consent order to mean both parties share liabilities for property-related costs up to the date of the order (30 Oct 2013) and that, thereafter, costs fall to the party who becomes owner under the order; because no full accounting had been done, the court ordered limited retrospective accounting from the date of the undertaking (24 Sep 2012) to 30 Oct 2013, directed documentary schedules and reconciliation, required clarification of bank/income items, added certain bank deposit sums to the amount due to the wife, ordered an interim payment into court pending final recon…
15 Apr 2013

GRAND ASIAN LTD v. SHOE MART CO LTD

Citation

GRAND ASIAN LTD v. SHOE MART CO LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP590/2013

The court exercised its discretion under ss111(2) and 122(1B) of the Companies Ordinance and granted rectification for both Shoe Mart and Cobblers because the defaults were inadvertent, the sole shareholder was not prejudiced and adequate steps had been taken to ensure future compliance; relief granted was made conditional on undertakings to notify the Stock Exchange and to refer the order and reasons in any relevant prospectus; no order as to costs.
18 Aug 2011

BRINGTON ENGINEERING LTD v. CHEERISE ASIA LTD

Citation

BRINGTON ENGINEERING LTD v. CHEERISE ASIA LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCT2/2010

Court held that on proper construction the Sub-Contract and incorporated Technical Specifications imposed design responsibility on the defendant (sub-contractor); 'back-to-back' did not make the Sub-Contractor's entitlements dependent on the consultant's decision or import pay-when-paid; defendant's extension of time claims failed; defendant liable to plaintiff for liquidated damages of HK$532,000; other disputed claims and contra-charges failed.
14 Jul 2009

HONG KONG HOUSING AUTHORITY v. ROTEGEAR CORPORATION LTD

Citation

HONG KONG HOUSING AUTHORITY v. ROTEGEAR CORPORATION LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCT26/2008

The court held that the Form of Tender together with Rotegear's correspondence and the Authority's nomination created a direct enforceable contract (warranty) between the Authority and Rotegear; Rotegear breached that warranty by failing to proceed with due diligence in accordance with the Main Contractor's programme; Nishimatsu's termination of the NSC was not wrongful; the Authority lawfully mitigated by engaging replacement contractors and is entitled to damages of HKD 8,784,880 plus interest and costs.
21 Jul 2006

RE SELLEYS PTY LTD

Citation

RE SELLEYS PTY LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP82/2006

Rule 37 contemplates filing an original counter-statement but does not exclude reception of a copy of a statutory declaration; given the Registrar's broad procedural discretion under s.78 and Rule 79 the Tribunal may admit a copy and test authenticity by calling the declarant for oral identification of the original. A procedural irregularity of filing a copy does not automatically make it inadmissible or deprive the owner of protection absent material prejudice; accordingly the Hearing Officer was correct to admit the copy and set aside the Registrar's treatment of the application as unoppose…
15 May 2004

KENWORTH ENGINEERING LTD v. NISHIMATSU CONSTRUCTION CO LTD

Citation

KENWORTH ENGINEERING LTD v. NISHIMATSU CONSTRUCTION CO LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCT25/2004

The court held that adequacy of particulars can be a question of law and that the Arbitrator was obviously wrong in law to bar Kenworth from presenting cases based on AMSOC 26A, 28 and 43 and Amended Schedule 4(20); accordingly leave to appeal was granted as the matters would substantially affect the parties' rights under AO s.23(4). The court refused to remove the Arbitrator and declined to remit the 7th Award or demand reasons as unnecessary in light of leave to appeal.