Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Prejudice and adjournment

Legal area

Court

10 Jan 2025

GIANT HARVEST LTD v. NAN HAI CORPORATION LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 312
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2072/2018

The summons to file the supplemental witness statements and exhibits was dismissed because the applicants failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for inordinate delay, the proposed evidence was new and its high probative value was not demonstrated, and its admission would cause real prejudice to OSGH Parties that could not be remedied by costs or accommodated without adjournment; procedural fairness and case management outweigh the asserted need to admit the late material.
10 Jan 2025

GIANT HARVEST LTD v. NAN HAI CORPORATION LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 312
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2560/2018

The summons to admit supplemental witness statements and exhibits was dismissed because the applicants failed to give an acceptable explanation for inordinate delay; the proposed evidence contained new material of uncertain probative value that would cause real prejudice to the OSGH Parties and likely necessitate adjournment and further enquiries; balancing substantive and procedural fairness required refusal; costs were ordered against the applicants.
29 Dec 2020

GE YANHONG v. WANG CHUNYANG AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 3166
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA839/2016

The application for leave to give evidence by VCF was dismissed because it was made inordinate delay after PTR without adequate explanation, and the Defendants would suffer real prejudice and disruption (including quarantine and cost issues); the appropriate course was to adjourn the trial to a date to be fixed, with costs to be heard.
21 Oct 2020

HIGH HOPE ZHONGDING CORPORATION v. 廈門墩峰進出口有限公司 AND OTHERS

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 3152
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2485/2015

The amendment and related evidence were refused because (i) a surety cannot assert an equitable set-off available to the principal debtor in the absence of that principal debtor in the same proceedings; and (ii) the proposed amendment came at a late stage after trial had commenced and would cause serious prejudice by requiring adjournment and undermining Civil Justice Reform; the Agreed List reference did not cure the absence of pleading.
27 Jul 2018

PT TUGU PRATAMA INDONESIA v. CITIBANK N.A

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 1789
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCL1/2007

The application was refused because the proposed evidence was in substance expert opinion presented by a witness without personal knowledge; the material to be presented has little probative value beyond the documents themselves; and permitting the late evidence would prejudice the defendant and risk adjournment in a case pending since 2007.
6 Feb 2018

MEI SHENG TEXTILES VIETNAM CO LTD v. CHINA GRACE GARMENT LTD

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 244
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2311/2013

Leave to adduce the late affirmation and voluminous exhibits was refused because the documents were business records in the defendant's possession, the defendant failed to show exceptional circumstances or reasonable diligence justifying late production, the consent order barred further affidavits without leave, and the late application prejudiced the plaintiff and disrupted the allocated hearing time.
16 Nov 2017

REALRAY INVESTMENTS LTD v. YU PO CHI AND ANOTHER

Citation

REALRAY INVESTMENTS LTD v. YU PO CHI AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP33/2017

The trial judge lawfully exercised case management discretion in admitting the late Electricity Bills because he accepted the late disclosure was an oversight, the bills were relevant and of minimal prejudice, the plaintiffs did not seek an adjournment to investigate authenticity, and the judge properly reserved weight; consequently there was no reasonable prospect of success on appeal and leave was denied.
14 Feb 2017

CHOI YUK YING v. NG NGOK CHUEN

Citation

CHOI YUK YING v. NG NGOK CHUEN
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1853/2014

The amendment to introduce a constructive trust was a new cause of action not obvious from existing pleadings, was served late without sufficient justification, and would prejudice the defendant by necessitating an adjournment; accordingly leave to amend was refused and the plaintiff was debarred from running the constructive trust issue at trial or in closing submissions, with costs ordered to the defendant.
17 Jun 2016

CRANE WORLD ASIA PTE LTD v. HONTRADE ENGINEERING LTD

Citation

CRANE WORLD ASIA PTE LTD v. HONTRADE ENGINEERING LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA109/2014

Application to amend was refused because it was made extraordinarily late without satisfactory explanation, the proposed increased claims were supported by inadequate and inaccurate particulars (including invoices relating to cranes outside the 32 agreements), and allowing the amendment would cause prejudice by likely requiring amendment of defence, additional evidence and adjournment; on balance the court exercised its discretion to refuse amendment.
5 Jun 2014

WONG KWONG YIU v. MOK HING CHUNG

Citation

WONG KWONG YIU v. MOK HING CHUNG
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAP10/2012

The court exercised its discretion to allow the very late witness exceptionally because the proposed evidence was relevant to surrounding circumstances bearing on the dispute, the prejudice from lateness could be addressed by costs or case management rather than outright exclusion, and the trial timetable could be managed without unacceptable disruption; costs reserved for later determination.