Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Prejudice and delay

Legal area

Court

14 Oct 2024

GIANT HARVEST LTD v. NAN HAI CORPORATION LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 2829
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2072/2018

The appeal is dismissed and the Master's order upheld because the applicant failed to provide a convincing explanation for inordinate delay, the proposed supplemental witness statement contained predominantly new and in large part inadmissible evidence, and admitting the applications at this late stage would cause real and uncompensable prejudice and disrupt pre-trial milestones; accordingly leave to amend pleadings and to adduce the supplemental evidence is refused and costs awarded to the respondents.
16 Sept 2024

MEI KING MACHINERY ENGINEERING v. PRIZEMART LTD

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 2428
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA283/2023

The appeal was dismissed: the costs order was properly interpreted as awarding the costs of the amendment summons in accordance with the final award on the December 4 summons (and the defendant had effectively not opposed placing the costs in the cause below), and the Master did not err in granting leave to amend because the new paragraphs raised factual issues (technical meaning of 試車 and contextual negotiations) appropriate for trial and the defendant had not shown irreparable prejudice from delay or the death of Mr Ng that would justify refusal to amend.
6 Jul 2023

OCI CAPITAL LTD v. LANHAI INTERNATIONAL TRADING LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 1804
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1499/2019

The amendment was refused because it raised a new, unparticularised allegation that the 2nd Defendant entered the Oral Agreement through an agent; the plaintiffs offered no adequate explanation for the late application; the lack of particulars and the defendants' inability to obtain instructions or evidence from a key person (Mr Mi), who is uncontactable and under investigation, created real prejudice. The VCF application was allowed only for the 2nd Defendant whose travel is presently prohibited by mainland authorities, but refused for the other witness (Ms Lu) because the evidence did not s…
15 Nov 2022

ECHELLES RIFFIAUD S.A. v. THE SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 3486
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1841/2011

The summons was dismissed and leave to file the 3rd supplemental witness statement and 2nd supplemental list of documents refused because the applicant's delay was inordinate and inexcusable and admission would cause gross prejudice and disruption to the defendant and the trial timetable.
29 Sept 2021

LI NGAN KWAN AND OTHERS v. GAO LI HUI AND OTHERS

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 2878
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA933/2007

The amendment summons is dismissed because there was inordinate and inexcusable delay, the proposed amendments introduce new causes and materially new factual bases (including change from negligence to intentional wrongdoing and novel claims of forgery and altered proprietary bases) that are time‑barred under s35 LO or otherwise bound to fail, and the defendants would suffer irremediable prejudice from the lateness that cannot be compensated by costs.
21 Jun 2021

REDLAND PRECAST CONCRETE PRODUCTS (CHINA) LTD v. AES STEEL MOULD (HONG KONG) LTD

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 1757
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCT20/2018

The judge refused leave to appeal and refused a stay because the intended appeal lacked a reasonable prospect of success and there was no other interest of justice to hear it; the refusal to admit the late expert evidence was a proper exercise of case management discretion in light of undue delay, prejudice to the defendant, failure to use procedures available to challenge the single joint expert, and concerns about the proposed expert's independence; therefore leave and stay were refused and costs were ordered against the plaintiff.
8 Apr 2019

CENTRAL SOUTHWOOD LTD v. MA WAI KIN AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2019] HKDC 457
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ3343/2016

On a provisional assessment the defendants' evidence could well be believed at trial that the loan transaction was a domestic arrangement cloaked as a PRC loan to avoid the MLO, the choice of PRC law was not bona fide, and therefore the principal loan and the indemnity may be unenforceable; accordingly the 1st Defendant established a meritorious defence and the regular judgment and charging order must be set aside and discharged and leave given to defend.
1 Feb 2019

TSANG SIU TUNG v. THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF ARGYLE HOUSE (No 43 Argyle Street)(sued on its own behalf and representing all owners of Argyle House, No 43 Argyle Street erected on the remaining portion of Kowloon Inland Lot No 2245)

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 464
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA166/2012

Leave to amend was refused in part because the proposed new defences and factual particulars were newly introduced at a very late stage without adequate explanation, the particulars were insufficient and vague (causing likely embarrassment and prejudice to the plaintiff), and allowing them would likely delay the scheduled trial; accordingly specified paragraphs were disallowed while other unopposed amendments were permitted.
17 Dec 2018

HERAEUS LTD v. CHAN YUN MUI AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 2721
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA878/2011

The appeal was dismissed because the proposed amendments (the Violet Amendments) did not disclose a serious prospect of overcoming the conclusive evidence clause: the alleged fraud and manifest errors were not sufficiently particularised or credible, the issues raised required extensive investigation (not a manifest error), and allowing the amendments would cause undue prejudice and delay; accordingly D2's application to amend was refused and the registrar's order was upheld.
3 Sept 2018

HAI KUO SHIPPING 1201 LTD v. EVERWIN SHIPPING (HONG KONG) CO LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 2080
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAJ79/2014

The application was dismissed because the 3rd Defendant provided no independent evidence to explain his non-attendance, the contractual guarantee and quantum were valid and had been considered by the court, and granting relief would cause undue delay and prejudice to the Plaintiff.