Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Section 27 limitation ordinance

Legal area

Court

19 Mar 2021

LUI CHO YIN v. 雷健邦 AND OTHERS

Citation

[2021] HKDC 299
Court

District Court
Case number

DCPI1041/2018

The Court found on the evidence that the Plaintiff did not acquire actual knowledge of the 2nd Defendant's role until 11 February 2019 (and at worst only on 21 December 2016), so the amendment on 15 April 2019 was within the three‑year limitation; alternatively, even if time had expired the Court would exercise its s.30 discretion to disapply the limitation period because the delay (11 months) was not substantial and the 2nd Defendant had not shown sufficient prejudice to make it inequitable to allow the claim to proceed.
12 Sept 2018

LUCY MICHAELS v. CENTALINE PROPERTY AGENCY LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 2023
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCPI902/2016

The court struck out the plaintiff's claim and dismissed the summary judgment application because the plaintiff failed to produce the medical report required for a personal injury action, lacked any evidential basis to prove gas leakage or causation linking alleged symptoms to carbon monoxide from the stove, and failed to credibly establish a later date of knowledge to avoid the three-year limitation; accordingly the claim was hopeless and disapplication of the limitation period under s30 was not warranted.
11 Apr 2011

MOK LAI FONG v. 吳寶穗 AND OTHERS

Citation

MOK LAI FONG v. 吳寶穗 AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCPI549/2010

The court disapplied section 27 and allowed the claim to proceed because (a) the post-expiry delay was relatively short (about six months), (b) the plaintiff acted reasonably in entrusting the matter to former solicitors and promptly applied for legal aid once the retainer was terminated, (c) the defendants had early notification of the claim (pre-action letter Sept 2008) and have not shown specific forensic prejudice that would prevent a fair trial, and (d) potential remedies against former solicitors do not eliminate plaintiff's prejudice and are not determinative when actual forensic preju…
5 Jan 2011

PANG KWOK LAM v. SCHNEIDER ELECTRIC ASIA PACIFIC LTD

Citation

PANG KWOK LAM v. SCHNEIDER ELECTRIC ASIA PACIFIC LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCPI90/2010

The Master held that the plaintiff did not have constructive knowledge of Law/BLC's identity or factual basis for vicarious liability on or before 30 July 2007, so the claim against Law/BLC fell within time; alternatively, even if time-barred the court would exercise its equitable discretion under s30 to disapply s27 because a fair trial remained possible and the balance of prejudice favoured the plaintiff; accordingly Law formerly trading as BLC was ordered joined as second defendant and leave granted to amend the writ and related directions were made.
11 Aug 2006

MOHAMMAD MUTLOOB v. WISE SECURITY LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

MOHAMMAD MUTLOOB v. WISE SECURITY LTD AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCPI410/2005

The court lacked jurisdiction to join the third party because the plaintiff failed to show that addition of the third party was necessary for determination of the original action as required by section 35(7)(b) LO and O.15 r.6; the existing claim against the employer could be maintained without joinder, and no justification for overriding the limitation period was provided; accordingly the application to join and to amend pleadings was dismissed.
30 Jun 2005

LEUNG TAI SANG v. HOSPITAL AUTHORITY

Citation

LEUNG TAI SANG v. HOSPITAL AUTHORITY
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCPI481/2004

Plaintiff failed to discharge the heavy burden under section 30: delay was long (about 6 years 9 months, 45 months after expiry), reasons for delay were not convincing or sufficient, evidence had become significantly less cogent and inspection/opportunity to investigate were lost causing real prejudice to defendant, and on balance prejudice to defendant outweighed plaintiff; therefore disapplication refused and action struck out.
23 Sept 1999

WU KWOK BIU v. CHAN HO SUN

Citation

WU KWOK BIU v. CHAN HO SUN
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCPI496/1998

s.30 Cap.347 was engaged and it was equitable to disapply s.27 because the defendant suffered no substantial evidential prejudice (the key witnesses were untraceable even earlier), parties negotiated after limitation expired indicating the claim was not stale, the merits favored the plaintiff (defendant's guilty plea and tyre mark), delay of about eight months after expiry was not so long as to render trial unfair; accordingly the defendant's stay was refused and the action permitted to proceed.
5 Feb 1991

HUNG MAN PING v. WING YICK & CO BUILDING CONTRACTOR (a firm) AND OTHERS

Citation

HUNG MAN PING v. WING YICK & CO BUILDING CONTRACTOR (a firm) AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA12824/1983

Judge applied objective s.27 knowledge test taking into account plaintiff's youth, lack of English, confusion over employment and payments and found plaintiff did not acquire requisite knowledge of the 2nd and 3rd defendants' potential liability until the 1st defendant served its defence and third party notices on 22 November 1983; accordingly the claims were within the three year period and not time-barred. Alternatively, had the claims been time‑barred, the court would have exercised its s.30 discretion to disapply the time‑bar because the delay was primarily due to solicitor and Legal Aid…