Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Failure to comply with court orders

Legal area

Court

11 Jun 2025

張惠蘭對中国建築工程(香港)有限公司

Citation

[2025] HKCA 533
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP78/2024

Court found applicant did not serve a complete amended bundle by the deadline; the postal evidence was inconsistent and implausible; applicant failed to give any good and reasonable explanation for both non‑compliance with the 9 September 2024 order and for the delay in applying for relief; therefore relief from sanction was refused and the 15 October 2024 summons dismissed, with costs ordered against the applicant and a paper assessment procedure directed.
22 Jul 2014

TSANG CHI CHEONG v. THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF MEI KING MANSION (STAGE 1)

Citation

TSANG CHI CHEONG v. THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF MEI KING MANSION (STAGE 1)
Court

District Court
Case number

DCPI23/2012

The court found the plaintiff's solicitors wholly in breach of the master’s order and PD 18.1, that the breaches were inexcusable and not cured by last-minute efforts, and therefore adjourned the PTR and ordered that all costs thrown away by the adjournment be borne personally by the plaintiff's solicitors with certificate for counsel to be assessed summarily.
13 Oct 2010

WHEELER ENTERPRISES & ENGINEERING LTD v. HU MEI, WINDY

Citation

WHEELER ENTERPRISES & ENGINEERING LTD v. HU MEI, WINDY
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ3210/2002

The plaintiff's prolonged, inordinate and inexcusable delay and failure to comply with court orders and repeated warnings amounted to an abuse of the court's process and caused prejudice rendering a fair trial impossible; accordingly, it was fair and appropriate to strike out the plaintiff's action and to order indemnity costs with a certificate for counsel, and to permit the defendant to withdraw the counterclaim with no order as to costs.
25 Apr 2007

KAO LEE & YIP (a firm) v. DONALD KOO HOI YAN AND OTHERS

Citation

KAO LEE & YIP (a firm) v. DONALD KOO HOI YAN AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA8847/1993

Given the Court of Appeal's conclusive finding that the defendant wilfully failed to comply with three court orders requiring maintenance and verification of client work records and disclosure of files, the High Court, on remittal, held that a substantial fine (HK$135,000) was the appropriate penalty rather than imprisonment because the defendant had provided substantial, if belated and incremental, disclosure that mitigated the need for custodial punishment.
17 Feb 1995

YEUNG MAN FUNG t/a YIP HING DESIGN DECORATION & ENGINEERING v. HUNG FAN KEUNG HENRY

Citation

YEUNG MAN FUNG t/a YIP HING DESIGN DECORATION & ENGINEERING v. HUNG FAN KEUNG HENRY
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV199/1994

Where a defendant repeatedly failed to comply with an order for particulars, had sufficient opportunities to comply or to appeal earlier, and sought at a late stage to change the nature of the defence, the trial judge was within her discretion to refuse leave to amend and to strike out the defence and enter judgment for the plaintiff; the sanction was not disproportionate and the appeal must be dismissed.

Hong Kong Case Law

張惠蘭 對 中国建築工程(香港)有限公司

TSANG CHI CHEONG v. THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF MEI KING MANSION (STAGE 1)

WHEELER ENTERPRISES & ENGINEERING LTD v. HU MEI, WINDY

KAO LEE & YIP (a firm) v. DONALD KOO HOI YAN AND OTHERS

YEUNG MAN FUNG t/a YIP HING DESIGN DECORATION & ENGINEERING v. HUNG FAN KEUNG HENRY

張惠蘭對中国建築工程(香港)有限公司