Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Failure to prosecute

Legal area

Court

29 Aug 2025

FUKU GROUP LIMITED formerly known as LIONSTAR GROUP LTD v. RAKICH INVESTMENTS LTD formerly known as COMPUTER DYNAMICS LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 3881
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2400/2018

Where a party knowingly or recklessly makes false representations as to title to the subject matter inducing another to enter a contract, the contract is voidable for fraudulent misrepresentation; the representee may rescind the contract ab initio and recover restitution and damages, and the individual representors are personally liable; applying these principles, the Agreement was rescinded and damages awarded to Rakich Investments.
30 Jan 2024

ASIAM HOLDINGS LTD v. SHIN KAI LOK AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 375
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA771/2020

The court may exercise its case management powers at a pre-trial review to require defendants to confirm attendance at trial within a reasonable period and may prescribe consequences for failure to do so; given the defendants' repeated non-attendance, failure to file witness statements and inability to adduce oral evidence, it was just to require written confirmation by 30 April 2024 that they will attend the trial and to strike out the Amended Defence (filed 12 Jan 2021) and permit the plaintiff to enter judgment against the 1st defendant if they fail to comply, with specified consequential…
20 Jun 2023

王天賜對香港特別行政區

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 1825
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA232/2021

Notice sent by ordinary post that was not returned was presumed served; the appellant failed to prove non‑receipt was not due to his own negligence and failed to prosecute the appeal or attend the hearing; accordingly the appeal is dismissed and the magistrate's order is upheld.
24 Feb 2023

LEE PRISCILLA SIOK AI v. WONG LOK HIM

Citation

[2023] HKDC 295
Court

District Court
Case number

DCPI4106/2019

The claim was dismissed because the plaintiff failed to attend the AOD milestone hearing, did not establish exceptional circumstances under Order 25 r3 RDC to justify adjournment, failed to follow procedural rules for accepting a sanctioned payment out of time and produced unreliable evidence; accordingly dismissal and indemnity costs were ordered and the sanctioned payment paid out to the defendant.
29 Jun 2022

RE INDAYATI

Citation

[2022] HKCA 923
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV436/2021

Applicant failed to comply with clear directions to lodge two sets of appeal bundles, did not apply for relief from sanction under Order 2 Rule 4 Cap 4A, was two days late in seeking leave and disclosed no good and sufficient grounds or any reasonably arguable question of general or public importance; therefore the Court properly refused to grant extension of time or leave to appeal and dismissed the Notice of Motion.
21 Mar 2022

GE YANHONG v. WANG CHUNYANG AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 840
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA839/2016

The action was dismissed because the Plaintiff failed to attend the trial fixed after adequate notice and failed to comply with pre‑trial directions; accordingly the Court ordered dismissal and awarded the defendants their costs to be taxed, with payment first to be made out of the HK$700,000 (plus interest) previously paid into Court.
27 Oct 2021

WONG KING FUN PAUL 對李立言醫生及另一人

Citation

[2021] HKDC 1300
Court

District Court
Case number

DCPI4324/2019

The appeal for restoration and extension was refused and the action struck out because the applicant failed to provide credible objective evidence for his non-attendance and delay, his pleadings lacked necessary particulars and medical evidence to establish toxicity, causation or quantifiable injury, the pleaded facts suggested the claim may be statute-barred, the damages demanded exceeded the court's jurisdiction and the second defendant was not a proper independent legal person; accordingly the claim disclosed no reasonable prospect and was struck out under Order 18(19(1)), with costs award…
22 Jul 2021

RE UDDIN MOHI

Citation

[2021] HKCA 1020
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV366/2020

Leave to appeal was refused because the applicant failed to comply with an unless order, did not apply for relief from sanction under Order 2 rule 4, provided no particulars to justify his non-compliance, and thus there was no basis to grant leave to the Court of Final Appeal.
21 May 2021

RE GURJIT SINGH

Citation

[2021] HKCA 708
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV137/2020

Because the applicant failed to comply with the unless order and did not apply for relief from sanction or provide sufficient particulars or evidence to justify non-compliance, there was no reasonably arguable basis to disturb the dismissal and leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal was refused.
3 May 2021

RE GONI MOHAMMAD USMAN

Citation

[2021] HKCA 569
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV263/2017

The unless order was properly made and should stand because the applicant failed to comply with clear directions, the directions were sent to the address on file, the applicant gave no satisfactory explanation for non‑receipt or the prolonged delay after learning of the dismissal, no relief from sanction was sought, and there was no reasonably arguable basis to impugn the unless order; accordingly leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal is refused.