Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Milestone dates

Legal area

Court

8 Jul 2025

PAN HAIFEI v. TAI KAREN KAI LUN

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 2963
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1017/2021

Although the court was sceptical about the genuineness of the defendant's illness and critical of her travel shortly before trial and late instruction of counsel, the court exercised its discretion to allow a short adjournment to 4 August 2025 on the explicit condition that the defendant pay all costs occasioned by the two adjournments upfront on an indemnity basis (summarily assessed at HK$250,000 plus an outstanding assessed amount of HK$18,000) by 22 July 2025, and that failure to comply would bar the defendant from relying on and advancing her defence and counterclaim and allow the plaint…
2 Dec 2024

PMCL also known as LMC also known as KLMC v. AKK also known as KAK AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2024] HKFC 219
Court

Family Court
Case number

FCMC11521/2015

A bare sick leave certificate is insufficient to justify vacating a milestone trial date; the applicant must provide a detailed medical report from a Hong Kong registered practitioner certifying diagnosis, inability to attend, consideration of ameliorative measures and anticipated recovery timeframe. Absent such evidence the court may proceed and the adjournment is not warranted; a limited adjournment was granted to allow production of adequate medical evidence and costs were reserved.
27 Sept 2024

SUN HUNG KAI CREDIT LTD v. GUAN WENNA

Citation

[2024] HKDC 1524
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ2294/2021

Defendant's pleaded counterclaim, when properly assessed for set-off, does not exceed the District Court monetary jurisdiction; section 41 DCO does not permit transfer of a counterclaim to the CFI; the defendant provided no satisfactory explanation or exceptional circumstances for the lengthy delay in taking interlocutory steps, so relief from the unless order, transfer to CFI, and the joinder/amendment applications are refused; costs are ordered on an indemnity basis and to be summary assessed.
12 Jun 2023

CHUNG SUET WAN v. CHUNG SUET HAN AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2023] HKDC 808
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ5534/2020

The court found the plaintiff genuinely unfit to attend trial on medical evidence, that she is the sole key witness on the central issue of common intention and beneficial ownership, and that no substantial prejudice to defendants was demonstrated; balancing the need for just resolution against court efficiency, the judge held exceptional circumstances existed under O.25 r.3 RDC and vacated and adjourned the trial with directions and costs reserved.
16 Aug 2021

NG NIM CHUNG, deceased AND ANOTHER v. NG WING MAN TERRY

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 2423
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2221/2016

Adjournment refused and plaintiffs permitted to proceed in defendant's absence under O35 r1(2) because the defendant failed to discharge the burden to justify an adjournment: his inability to return was self‑induced or not adequately evidenced, he delayed notifying the court, he did not explore reasonable alternatives or restoration of his counterclaim, and an adjournment would prejudice the plaintiffs (including an elderly administratrix) and public resources.
20 Apr 2018

SUN HING CHEONG TEXTILE LTD v. CHAN WAI MING AND OTHERS

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 765
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1745/2013

The court held it was not functus officio and, balancing the Rules' underlying objectives, an adjournment was justified because the inability to secure responsible counsel was forced upon the plaintiff and amounted to exceptional circumstances; accordingly the four‑day adjournment was granted and costs ordered to defendants.
27 Oct 2017

GURUNG SUMITRA v. HOSPITAL AUTHORITY

Citation

GURUNG SUMITRA v. HOSPITAL AUTHORITY
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCPI887/2013

The court refused to treat late assignment of counsel and counsel's convenience as exceptional grounds to change milestone trial dates but exercised its discretion to grant a short adjournment of approximately four months after balancing the parties' interests and because the judge had fortuitous availability; trial dates were reset to specified dates in May and June 2018.
19 Jun 2017

SKYRUN LIGHT INDUSTRY (HONG KONG) CO LTD AND ANOTHER v. SWIFT RESOURCES LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

SKYRUN LIGHT INDUSTRY (HONG KONG) CO LTD AND ANOTHER v. SWIFT RESOURCES LTD AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1278/2014

The judge exercised a discretionary balancing test under Order 25 rule 1B(2)-(3) and concluded D2's inability to attend trial in Hong Kong arising from credible Cambodian proceedings constituted exceptional circumstances that justified vacating and adjourning the trial, but because defendants delayed disclosure and failed to demonstrate videolink arrangements, the adjournment must be conditional to protect plaintiffs: re-fixing trial promptly, requiring payment into court as security for interest exposure, debarment sanction if condition not met, and indemnity costs to plaintiffs.
6 Jun 2017

WONG FONG YUK v. 黃興醒

Citation

WONG FONG YUK v. 黃興醒
Court

District Court
Case number

DCPI1694/2013

The plaintiff's solicitors repeatedly and unacceptably failed to comply with court-ordered milestone dates; their failures amounted to negligence and not "exceptional circumstances" under Order 25 rule 3 RDC. The adjournment application was refused insofar as it sought informal variation, but the court granted one final opportunity subject to strict conditions: the plaintiff must apply to restore the assessment hearing within 7 days and re-lodge and re-serve the opening submission in Chinese within 14 days, with proposed personal indemnity costs against the solicitors unless representations a…
2 Sept 2016

ELIJAH SAATORI v. RAFFLES MEDICAL GROUP (HONG KONG) LTD

Citation

ELIJAH SAATORI v. RAFFLES MEDICAL GROUP (HONG KONG) LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCPI1114/2006

Adjournment refused. The plaintiff caused or contributed to the late revocation of his legal aid by failing to update his means in time and by late disclosure of a settlement; no exceptional circumstances justified varying the milestone trial date; defendant would suffer real prejudice (witness availability, substantial irrecoverable costs) and could not be adequately compensated; the plaintiff can proceed in person and had rejected modest assistance options, so discretion to adjourn was not exercised.