Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Prejudice to defence

Legal area

Court

29 Apr 2022

香港特別行政區訴雷曉天及另十人

Citation

[2022] HKDC 344
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCC750/2020

The applications to consolidate were dismissed because the court concluded consolidation would cause unfair prejudice to defendants: the trials were already scheduled within months, consolidation would materially increase complexity and require significant additional defence preparation in an unrealistically short time, some counsel would be unavailable and replacements could not be prepared in time, prosecution's trial‑length estimates were optimistic, and court facilities and COVID‑19 risks weighed against consolidating large numbers of defendants into single trials.
25 Feb 2010

YIP KAM AND ANOTHER v. ZHONGSHAN FOODSTUFFS & AQUATIC IMPORT & EXPORT GROUP COMPANY LTD OF GUANGDONG AND ANOTHER

Citation

YIP KAM AND ANOTHER v. ZHONGSHAN FOODSTUFFS & AQUATIC IMPORT & EXPORT GROUP COMPANY LTD OF GUANGDONG AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV225/2009

The Court of Appeal (majority) held the judge below misapplied the governing test and factors, concluded the appellant’s explanation (age, illiteracy, waiting for police investigation, late/erroneous advice and timing of legal aid) could potentially amount to good reason at stage one, and on a fresh exercise of discretion found that the balance of hardship favoured the appellant; the order below striking out the writ was set aside and time extended to the date the writ was issued.
9 Sept 2009

HKSAR v. FUNG WING CHUNG JUDY

Citation

HKSAR v. FUNG WING CHUNG JUDY
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA438/2009

Although the notice of intended prosecution was sent by recorded delivery rather than registered post, the appellant suffered no prejudice because the summons for careless driving was sent to the same address which she answered and the police contacted her by telephone on 21 January 2008; the magistrate was entitled to accept the prosecution witnesses' evidence; therefore the appeal against conviction must be dismissed.
11 Jan 2008

HKSAR v. BAILEY LEONIZA R.

Citation

HKSAR v. BAILEY LEONIZA R.
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA774/2007

Court found there was doubt whether the appellant understood the oral warning and that the absence of written notice prejudiced her defence (lost opportunity to record events and locate witnesses); accordingly non-compliance with s68 could not be treated as harmless and the conviction was quashed.
18 Jan 2000

EE KIN YAN t/a KIN SHING ENGINEERING CO. v. HONEYWELL LTD.

Citation

EE KIN YAN t/a KIN SHING ENGINEERING CO. v. HONEYWELL LTD.
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCT8/1995

The cumulative periods of delay were inordinate and inexcusable and attributable to the plaintiff; the defendant did not acquiesce; the delays caused a real risk of an unfair trial because the dispute depends on oral evidence and witness credibility after a long lapse and two key defence witnesses are abroad and uncontactable; prejudice established and dismissal was necessary and granted.
27 Jul 1999

NGAN CHING PAI v. DOCTOR CHAN WAI LAM WILLIAM AND OTHERS

Citation

NGAN CHING PAI v. DOCTOR CHAN WAI LAM WILLIAM AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA10002/1991

Impecuniosity does not justify highly inordinate delay when that delay has caused such prejudice to the defendants that they cannot fairly defend the case; therefore the claim must be struck out for want of prosecution.
14 Nov 1974

LAU SHEE LEONG t/a FITTING CONSTRUCTION CO v. SHAW BROTHERS (HONG KONG) LTD

Citation

LAU SHEE LEONG t/a FITTING CONSTRUCTION CO v. SHAW BROTHERS (HONG KONG) LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA308/1972

The Registrar rightly dismissed the action for want of prosecution because the plaintiff's inordinate and inexcusable delay (including long delay prior to the writ) was likely to cause serious prejudice to the defendant's ability to defend, particularly where key issues depended on oral agreements and witness recollection, so a fair trial could not now be had.

Hong Kong Case Law

香港特別行政區 訴 雷曉天及另十人

YIP KAM AND ANOTHER v. ZHONGSHAN FOODSTUFFS & AQUATIC IMPORT & EXPORT GROUP COMPANY LTD OF GUANGDONG AND ANOTHER

HKSAR v. FUNG WING CHUNG JUDY

HKSAR v. BAILEY LEONIZA R.

EE KIN YAN t/a KIN SHING ENGINEERING CO. v. HONEYWELL LTD.

NGAN CHING PAI v. DOCTOR CHAN WAI LAM WILLIAM AND OTHERS

LAU SHEE LEONG t/a FITTING CONSTRUCTION CO v. SHAW BROTHERS (HONG KONG) LTD

香港特別行政區訴雷曉天及另十人