Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Prejudice requirement

Legal area

Court

18 Nov 2013

CHINA NONFERROUS METALS (HONG KONG) FINANCE CO LTD (In Liquidation) AND ANOTHER v. SOUTH-EAST ASIA INVESTMENT HOLDING COMPANY LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

CHINA NONFERROUS METALS (HONG KONG) FINANCE CO LTD (In Liquidation) AND ANOTHER v. SOUTH-EAST ASIA INVESTMENT HOLDING COMPANY LTD AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV253/2012

Leave to appeal was refused because the question was not engaged on the facts, the lower court had properly considered prejudice in context, the defendants had no real prospect of success, the burden of proof on a defendant alleging abuse by delay necessarily includes proving prejudice, and the 'or otherwise' limb was not satisfied.
23 Jan 2007

AZHAR HUSSAIN v. GAN ASSURANCES IARD COMPAGNIE FRANCAISE D’ASSURANCES ET DE REASSURANCES INCENDIE, ACCIDENTS ET RISQUES DIVERS

Citation

AZHAR HUSSAIN v. GAN ASSURANCES IARD COMPAGNIE FRANCAISE D’ASSURANCES ET DE REASSURANCES INCENDIE, ACCIDENTS ET RISQUES DIVERS
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ3087/2005

The court held that breach of Claims Settlement Condition A, which is a condition precedent to liability, disentitles the insured and the insurer need not prove prejudice; accordingly the defendant insurer is entitled to judgment against the 1st third party under section 43(3) Employees' Compensation Ordinance to be indemnified for the adjudged sum.
12 Oct 1990

CHAN YIU SUN v. YIP KIM CHEUNG AND OTHERS

Citation

CHAN YIU SUN v. YIP KIM CHEUNG AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2306/1986

The insured's failure to give notice as soon as possible breached Condition 5 and thereby failed a condition precedent in Condition 2; the insurer is entitled to avoid liability for indemnity without having to show prejudice, and therefore the insurer's repudiation succeeds.
16 Aug 1983

THE QUEEN v. CHAN TAK KWONG

Citation

THE QUEEN v. CHAN TAK KWONG
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC134/1983

Failure to record that statements were read back under s.82(3) did not render the committal void; s.82(3) is primarily evidential and directory in effect so non-compliance affects admissibility of the statement rather than the validity of the committal, and absent demonstrated prejudice the preliminary objection must be rejected; earlier authority (Queen v. Mok Chung) was incorrect and not followed.

Hong Kong Case Law

CHINA NONFERROUS METALS (HONG KONG) FINANCE CO LTD (In Liquidation) AND ANOTHER v. SOUTH-EAST ASIA INVESTMENT HOLDING COMPANY LTD AND ANOTHER

AZHAR HUSSAIN v. GAN ASSURANCES IARD COMPAGNIE FRANCAISE D’ASSURANCES ET DE REASSURANCES INCENDIE, ACCIDENTS ET RISQUES DIVERS

CHAN YIU SUN v. YIP KIM CHEUNG AND OTHERS

THE QUEEN v. CHAN TAK KWONG