Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Late interlocutory applications

Legal area

Court

5 Sept 2024

SHOWN WAI INVESTMENT COMPANY LTD v. HUI YIP WING DAVID

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 2339
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2959/2015

The application is allowed: indemnity costs are ordered for both the Amendment Application and the entirety of the proceedings because the Amendment Application was a late, highly disruptive interlocutory application and SW deliberately and unfairly concealed the existence and date of the Deacons Advice; SW pursued claims that were bound to fail and made serious unpleaded allegations without cogent evidence, thereby taking the conduct of the litigation out of the norm and justifying indemnity costs; costs of the summons are awarded to Hui and summarily assessed on an indemnity basis.
21 Aug 2023

POON WONG YEE SEE v. LO SAU WOON DIANA

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 2188
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1905/2020

The applications were refused because they were last‑minute, unjustified by exceptional circumstances, and would introduce new allegations and documents that would cause prejudice and disrupt immovable trial milestone dates under PD5.2; accordingly the proposed Re‑Amended Statement of Claim and supplemental witness statement are disallowed and the plaintiff is barred from relying on the supplemental lists of documents without leave.
17 Nov 2021

WANG RONGAN v. SILVER INTERNATIONAL INVESTMENT LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 3436
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1425/2015

The court exercised its case management discretion to allow the late change of expert on condition because (i) the original expert was unavailable through no compulsion by the plaintiff, (ii) the replacement expert merely adopts the original expert's views but that results in one expert and one set of evidence, (iii) the defendants would not suffer irreparable prejudice that cannot be cured, and (iv) further adjournment was undesirable; conditional compliance with expert directions (a without prejudice meeting) and strict costs orders were imposed.
4 May 2015

DR CHAN HIN KEUNG HENRY v. APPLE DAILY LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

DR CHAN HIN KEUNG HENRY v. APPLE DAILY LTD AND OTHERS
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ1474/2013

Leave to appeal was granted because there is an arguable case with reasonable chances of success that the deputy judge's classification of the amendment application as late and consequent case management refusal could be disturbed on appeal; accordingly the summons for leave to appeal succeeds and costs are reserved to the appeal.
22 Oct 2014

SO SAU LAI CONNIE t/a WING FUNG TRADING COMPANY v. DBS BANK (HONG KONG) LTD

Citation

SO SAU LAI CONNIE t/a WING FUNG TRADING COMPANY v. DBS BANK (HONG KONG) LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2807/2004

The summons for leave to file the unsigned supplemental expert report (Lee Draft) was dismissed because the applicant failed to provide a satisfactory justification for the lateness, the draft raised new unpleaded issues and included material beyond proper expert opinion, and its admission would have prejudiced the respondent and disrupted the imminent trial; costs were ordered against the applicant.
24 Apr 2014

HAU KWAI CHOI AND ANOTHER v. HAU WAI KEUNG

Citation

HAU KWAI CHOI AND ANOTHER v. HAU WAI KEUNG
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ4285/2012

The summons was dismissed because the application was made one day before the scheduled trial and amounted to inordinate and unjustified delay; admission of the late witness statements would inevitably derail the trial and prejudice the plaintiffs, breach prior court orders and Practice Direction 5.2, and the proposed amendments did not properly arise from any admissible new evidence; accordingly no leave was given to file the two late witness statements or to re-amend the pleadings, costs of HKD 38,108 awarded to plaintiffs, and the trial to proceed as scheduled.
7 May 2013

WADDINGTON LTD v. CHAN CHUN HOO THOMAS AND OTHERS

Citation

WADDINGTON LTD v. CHAN CHUN HOO THOMAS AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA3291/2003

The court ordered third party discovery against HSBC as the requested charge and mortgage documents were likely in HSBC's custody, relevant to corporate control and motive and necessary for fair trial preparation; ordered limited discovery against PWC but refused voluminous financial accounts due to burden and limited probative value; refused discovery against EY because requested materials belonged to Yugang and Yugang should be heard and late production risked jeopardising trial; dismissed security for costs application for undue delay and prejudice to plaintiff; allowed withdrawal of late…
7 Jan 2013

成都中泰交通建設發展有限公司 v. NEO CHINA LAND GROUP (HOLDINGS) LTD

Citation

成都中泰交通建設發展有限公司 v. NEO CHINA LAND GROUP (HOLDINGS) LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2196/2009

The court allowed the late applications to amend and to admit supplemental evidence because they merely expanded on the defendant's existing pleaded case, did not introduce a new defence, posed little risk of disrupting the trial date and the plaintiff could address the new material; the court ordered further security for costs of HK$2,500,000 after balancing delay, prior security paid, correspondence indicating willingness in principle to provide further security and the defendant's estimated costs, and allocated costs of the interlocutory hearings to be largely neutral given the lateness of…