Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Inordinate and inexcusable delay

Legal area

Court

10 Feb 2022

SUNLIGHT TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT LTD v. AGP (FAR EAST) LTD

Citation

[2022] HKDC 134
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ4867/2007

The appeal was allowed and both the defendant's counterclaim and the plaintiff's claim were struck out for want of prosecution because 11.5 years of complete inaction was inordinate and inexcusable, produced a substantial risk that a fair trial is no longer possible (witness death, advanced age and memory loss, inability to contact witnesses), and both parties' prolonged dormancy amounted to abuses of process; costs and costs directions were ordered.
5 Mar 2012

READY MIXED CONCRETE (HK) LTD v. TONG KEE ENGINEERING LTD

Citation

READY MIXED CONCRETE (HK) LTD v. TONG KEE ENGINEERING LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCT9/2005

Although the court found inordinate and inexcusable delay in the defendant's prosecution of the counterclaim, the plaintiff failed to establish that the delay caused the asserted serious prejudice because the plaintiff did not preserve contact details or take steps to secure witness evidence when witnesses left; coupled with the plaintiff's own inactivity, the court refused to strike out the counterclaim.
1 Apr 2011

YEUNG KIT LING v. MA KWAN HO LAWRENCE AND ANOTHER

Citation

YEUNG KIT LING v. MA KWAN HO LAWRENCE AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV258/2010

Given the facts — multiple unparticularised oral agreements dating back to 2002–2003, absence of documentary support, a complex factual dispute dependent on memory, and the plaintiff's extensive and detailed witness statement drafts — the judge was entitled to infer that the substantial delay caused serious prejudice to the defendants and to strike out the claim for want of prosecution. The CJR reinforces the duty of expedition but does not alter the test for serious prejudice; the judge did not err in principle nor was he plainly wrong in exercising his discretion to dismiss.
8 Apr 2010

ERP FURNITURE LTD v. TOP PINE TIMBER PRODUCTS LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

ERP FURNITURE LTD v. TOP PINE TIMBER PRODUCTS LTD AND ANOTHER
Court

District Court
Case number

DCMP526/2007

Although ERP's prolonged inaction amounted to inordinate and potentially abusive delay, the court gave decisive weight to the non-expiry of the limitation period and the public interest in avoiding duplicative proceedings; therefore dismissal was not justified. Instead the appropriate remedy was to impose firm case management directions and conditional striking out to secure expedition and fairness, and to order costs such that each party bears its own costs of the striking out application and appeal.
18 Sept 2009

WAH NAM GROUP LTD (In Liquidation) AND ANOTHER v. INSIGNIA BROOKE (HONG KONG) LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

WAH NAM GROUP LTD (In Liquidation) AND ANOTHER v. INSIGNIA BROOKE (HONG KONG) LTD AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA661/2004

The court found the plaintiffs were not guilty of inordinate or inexcusable delay; the steps taken to obtain witness evidence justified the period of activity; any prejudice to the 1st defendant was not shown to be such as to make a fair trial impossible; limitation and non‑compliance arguments did not warrant striking out on the material before the court; accordingly the summons to strike out for want of prosecution was dismissed and costs were to follow the event with an order nisi in favour of the plaintiffs for the application costs.
22 Apr 2009

SUPER WORTH CONTRACING CO LTD v. TOP GLORY HOLDING CO LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

SUPER WORTH CONTRACING CO LTD v. TOP GLORY HOLDING CO LTD AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA3754/2000

Appeal allowed and Master’s strike out set aside because uncontradicted evidence that plaintiffs lacked funds and now intend to proceed displaced the inference of an intention not to prosecute; delay alone, without demonstrated prejudice to a fair trial, does not satisfy the threshold for abuse of process under Grovit v Doctor and therefore strike out was unjustified.
23 Jun 2008

TEAM GLORY DEVELOPMENT LTD v. SO LUEN FAI

Citation

TEAM GLORY DEVELOPMENT LTD v. SO LUEN FAI
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA7943/1995

Although there was an inordinate delay of over ten years, the delay was excusable given a genuine and prudent decision by the plaintiff to await resolution of novel and conflicting appellate authorities on adverse possession; further, on the facts the delay did not cause serious prejudice to the defendant because competent witnesses and contemporaneous documentary and aerial photographic evidence remained available; accordingly the order striking out the action was set aside and the defendant's striking out summons dismissed. The court also held it is permissible when assessing serious prejud…
29 Feb 2008

TANG HON TSAI v. KIN CHI TRADING CO LTD

Citation

TANG HON TSAI v. KIN CHI TRADING CO LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1696/1996

The court found the plaintiff's delay in prosecuting assessment for over ten years was inordinate and inexcusable given continued legal representation and inadequate explanations; the delay caused likely irreparable prejudice to the defendant because witnesses and surveyors could no longer recall or verify findings and relevant evidence had been lost, so the court exercised its inherent jurisdiction to permanently stay the proceedings rather than dismiss them outright given an interlocutory judgment on liability.
19 Jan 2006

PBM (HONG KONG) LTD v. TANG KAM LUN, ALLAN AND OTHERS

Citation

PBM (HONG KONG) LTD v. TANG KAM LUN, ALLAN AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA13316/1997

A 16‑month period of delay (April 2003 to 13 August 2004) in filing Bill No.1 was inordinate and inexcusable given a reasonable allowance of six months from 27 September 2002; accordingly the court ordered a 15% reduction on the taxed costs to reflect displeasure at the delay.
22 Apr 2005

WING MING GARMENT FACTORY LTD v. THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF WING MING INDUSTRIAL CENTRE AND ANOTHER

Citation

WING MING GARMENT FACTORY LTD v. THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF WING MING INDUSTRIAL CENTRE AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA8805/1993

Although there was inordinate and inexcusable delay and resulting prejudice, the solicitors' November 1994 written agreement constituted a valid extension for exchange of witness statements, the limitation point did not decisively favor strike-out, the plaintiff's claim had arguable merit, and the balance of relevant factors justified exercising the court's discretion against striking out; accordingly the master's strike-out was set aside and the appeal allowed with directions to restore proceedings for further directions and to proceed expeditiously.