Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Renewal of writ

Legal area

Court

12 Dec 2025

ALLIED WELI DEVELOPMENT LTD (In Liquidation) v. CHUANG YUE-CHIEN EUGENE AND OTHERS

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 6195
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA57/2018

The court refused to vary the costs order because the plaintiff's shadow directorship claim against the 1st defendant was sustainable on the existing ASoC without reliance on the late amendments, and the 1st defendant's multiple unsuccessful applications (including abuse of process and renewal challenges) justified maintaining the original costs order against him.
6 Jan 2023

CHEUNG SUEN HEUNG v. HOSPITAL AUTHORITY

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 80
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA3023/2017

The court will exercise its discretion to extend the validity of an expired writ where the applicant demonstrates active pursuit of the claim (including obtaining legal aid and expert evidence), provides a satisfactory explanation for failing to apply before expiry, and has not sat on the action; procedural irregularity under the Rules does not automatically bar relief.
26 Mar 2021

崔征對李水清

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 801
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2115/2018

The application for extension of time was refused because the plaintiff failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the delay despite prior reminders, negligence is not a sufficient justification, and granting the extension would likely prejudice the defendant by defeating limitation defences and would not produce a writ that is lawfully current; accordingly the court declined to exercise its discretion to extend time.
19 May 2016

YUNG MEI CHUN, JESSIE v. MERRILL LYNCH (ASIA PACIFIC) LTD

Citation

YUNG MEI CHUN, JESSIE v. MERRILL LYNCH (ASIA PACIFIC) LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP244/2016

The application for leave to appeal was incompetent and must be dismissed because Section 14AB of the High Court Ordinance (and Section 63B of the District Court Ordinance) precludes any appeal against a refusal of leave; furthermore the applicant failed to comply with Order 59 Rule 2A(1) and the court was entitled to dispose of the unmeritorious application on paper under Order 59 Rule 2A(8); earlier decisions on the same issues supported the refusal.
14 Mar 2016

YUNG MEI CHUN, JESSIE v. MERRILL LYNCH (ASIA PACIFIC) LTD

Citation

YUNG MEI CHUN, JESSIE v. MERRILL LYNCH (ASIA PACIFIC) LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP244/2016

Leave to appeal was refused because the plaintiff's repeated ex parte applications and summonses were vexatious and an abuse of process following the expiry of the limitation period and failure to renew the writ; the judge was correct to dismiss the applications and to make a restricted application order preventing further filings without leave, and the procedural irregularity of not using PD 11.3's form did not vitiate the order given the action had concluded.
25 Aug 2015

YUNG MEI CHUN, JESSIE v. MERRILL LYNCH (ASIA PACIFIC) LTD

Citation

YUNG MEI CHUN, JESSIE v. MERRILL LYNCH (ASIA PACIFIC) LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1648/2015

The Court refused leave because the judge's factual finding that the writ was received on 15 August 2014 (after the 12‑month validity) was not plainly wrong; consequently service was invalid under Order 6 r8, the limitation period had expired, there was no reasonable prospect of success on appeal, the OGC Report was privileged, and the plaintiff's leave application was hopeless and merited indemnity costs.
24 Apr 2012

WONG WAN CHUEN v. WONG HING YEE AND ANOTHER

Citation

WONG WAN CHUEN v. WONG HING YEE AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA4324/2003

The Notice of Discontinuance served on 9 June 2009 validly terminated the High Court action; there is no ruleed avenue to withdraw a valid notice of discontinuance and the court will not exercise inherent jurisdiction to set it aside on the facts here; accordingly the action had ceased and the three summonses (to amend pleadings, to set aside/withdraw discontinuance and to renew the writ) were dismissed, registration of the writ against the property to be vacated and costs awarded to defendants.
18 Jan 2012

CHAN LAP SHUM formerly t/a LAP SHUN PAO HONG v. CHENG SHING AND CHAN LAP WAH both Formerly t/a YIU WING TRADING CO

Citation

CHAN LAP SHUM formerly t/a LAP SHUN PAO HONG v. CHENG SHING AND CHAN LAP WAH both Formerly t/a YIU WING TRADING CO
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ4449/2009

Leave to appeal was refused because the plaintiff did not show a realistic prospect of success: the 'new evidence' would likely be inadmissible or would not have an important influence on the result, and the plaintiff failed to show good reason and a satisfactory explanation for not renewing the writ within time given the objective fact that the defendant was out of jurisdiction when service was attempted.
15 Nov 2011

CHAN LAP SHUN v. CHENG SHING AND ANOTHER

Citation

CHAN LAP SHUN v. CHENG SHING AND ANOTHER
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ4449/2009

The plaintiff failed to show good reason and a satisfactory explanation to renew an expired writ or to cure the procedural irregularity under Order 2 r.1 because he relied on unverified subjective belief of service despite available indications the defendant was in the PRC and available searches would have revealed this; renewal would deprive the defendant of a limitation defence; therefore the summons to extend/renew the writ is dismissed and Order 2 r.1 cannot be used to circumvent the requirements of Order 6 r.8 in these circumstances.
17 Jan 2008

CHAN PING CHEUNG v. PANYU NANSHA PORT PASSENGER TRANSPORT LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

CHAN PING CHEUNG v. PANYU NANSHA PORT PASSENGER TRANSPORT LTD AND ANOTHER
Court

District Court
Case number

DCPI212/2007

Court found plaintiff had shown a 'good reason' for extension because active, timely steps were taken to serve the defendants out of jurisdiction and delay was caused by necessary translation and certification and by the process of PRC service; having found good reason the court exercised its discretion in plaintiff's favour as there was no demonstrable prejudice to defendants and a real risk of the plaintiff losing limitation rights; the Amended Writ was therefore extended for six months.