Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Prejudice to defendant

Legal area

Court

3 Apr 2024

鍾紅蘭對安全護衛有限公司

Citation

[2024] HKDC 522
Court

District Court
Case number

DCEC1318/2023

Claim exceeded the 24‑month statutory limitation by about seven months and the claimant failed to provide a reasonable explanation for the delay; the contemporaneous Labour Department correspondence and legal aid application showed awareness of limitation; the medical evidence supporting causation was unpersuasive (doctor relied on claimant's account and was contradicted by Hong Kong Observatory records) and claimant's underlying hypertension plausibly explained the intracranial haemorrhage; on balance the claim lacked a reasonable prospect of success and the respondent would be prejudiced by…
16 Jul 2019

LI WO HIU EDWARDS 對 INLAND REVENUE DEPARTMENT

Citation

[2019] HKDC 941
Court

District Court
Case number

DCEC2100/2017

Applicant's summons to accept an out-of-time employees' compensation claim was dismissed because the delay of about 4 years 7 months was substantial, the applicant failed to provide a reasonable and particularised explanation linked to the period of delay, available evidence showed he had notice and Labour Department had rejected causal linkage in 2011, the claim lacked high prospects of success and allowing the late claim would likely prejudice the respondent.
19 Dec 2013

GRANADEX SA v. BANGKOK BANK PUBLIC COMPANY LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

GRANADEX SA v. BANGKOK BANK PUBLIC COMPANY LTD AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCL187/1993

Because the plaintiff allowed the action to remain dormant for an inordinate and inexcusable period (substantial dormancy since 1997), thereby causing serious prejudice to the 1st defendant (dissolution of 2nd defendant, death of guarantors, loss of witnesses) and because the plaintiff's liquidators do not intend to continue proceedings, the proper exercise of the court's discretion requires dismissal of the action against the 1st defendant and an award of costs to the 1st defendant to be taxed on a party and party basis if not agreed.
7 Nov 2011

POON CATHERINE v. HOSPITAL AUTHORITY

Citation

POON CATHERINE v. HOSPITAL AUTHORITY
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCPI381/2011

The court refused interim payment for the specific purpose of moving the 1st plaintiff from hospital or setting up a permanent habitation because evidence as to future care, prognosis, necessary adaptations and costs was incomplete and the proposal risked prejudicing the defendant and resulting in overpayment; however the court exercised its discretion to order a conservative interim payment of $2,000,000 into court (with a conservative estimate of total recoverable damages of not less than $4,000,000) to assist the plaintiff while guarding against overpayment.
6 Aug 2001

WONG WAI KUEN v. CHU\'S MAGIC CO. LTD.

Citation

WONG WAI KUEN v. CHU\'S MAGIC CO. LTD.
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ19263/1993

The court found inordinate and inexcusable delay by the plaintiff that caused prejudice to the defendant; that prejudice justified dismissal for want of prosecution as a proper exercise of judicial discretion; consequently leave to appeal was refused, with costs and certification for counsel ordered where appropriate.
19 May 2000

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

Citation

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

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV35/2000

The judge erred in principle by treating the defendant’s asserted witness unavailability as attributable to plaintiff’s delay without evidence; the defendant had not shown sufficient prejudice or impossibility of a fair trial to justify striking out, so the appellate court re‑exercised the discretion and allowed the appeal, setting aside the dismissal and making costs orders.
21 Oct 1999

WONG PUI YUEN v. YEUNG CHAK CHEUNG AND ANOTHER

Citation

WONG PUI YUEN v. YEUNG CHAK CHEUNG AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCPI178/1999

The appeal is dismissed because the plaintiff's prolonged, unexplained delay in prosecuting the claim (notably April 1994 to October 1998) was inexcusable, caused significant prejudice to the defendant (loss of memory, need for distant expert evidence, risk of hindsight) and prevented a fair trial; the plaintiff was not under a qualifying disability and therefore the Registrar's dismissal for want of prosecution was properly affirmed.
1 Jun 1999

Kerry Foodstuffs Co. Ltd. v. Phulsawat Navy Co. Ltd. and Others

Citation

Kerry Foodstuffs Co. Ltd. v. Phulsawat Navy Co. Ltd. and Others
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV262/1998

The Court of Appeal will not upset a trial judge's discretionary refusal to strike out for want of prosecution where, despite inordinate delay, the defendant's conduct (including consenting to extensions and acquiescence) reasonably justified allowing the action to continue; the judge did not err in principle and the appeal is dismissed.
31 Oct 1995

CHU YUEN WAH v. LEE KWOK KEE AND ANOTHER

Citation

CHU YUEN WAH v. LEE KWOK KEE AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2200/1994

Given the short post‑expiry delay of nine months, the plaintiff's severe disability and explanation for delay (lack of awareness, pursuit of recovery, insurer statements and MIB advice), the absence of material prejudice to the insurer's ability to defend and the substantial prejudice to the plaintiff if barred, it is equitable to disapply the limitation period under s.30 and allow the action to proceed.