Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Section 30 discretion

Legal area

Court

7 Nov 2022

LAM SHUI KING v. POLLUTION & PROTECTION SERVICES LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2022] HKDC 1285
Court

District Court
Case number

DCPI2005/2020

The court found the secondary limitation period began when the claimant was legally represented (11 October 2018) and the intended claim against CPCS was therefore time‑barred; nonetheless, after balancing prejudice, delay, cogency of evidence and prospects, the court exercised its unfettered discretion under s.30 to allow the time‑barred claim to proceed because there was no convincing forensic prejudice to CPCS and a fair trial remained possible; leave to join CPCS was granted with specific procedural orders and costs awarded against the plaintiff.
30 Apr 2021

CHU GREGORY v. YICK NGAI LOGISTICS (HK) CO LTD

Citation

[2021] HKDC 463
Court

District Court
Case number

DCPI110/2020

The court held that it was not plain and obvious that there was no cause of action against River Trade; the plaintiff did not have actual knowledge and did not have sufficient constructive knowledge of River Trade's involvement before expiry of the primary limitation period given the absence of signage or direct indicia in the Area, and a land search or speculation was not required; the court exercised its discretion under s.30 to allow the claim to proceed if necessary and granted leave to join River Trade and Bentat; costs were ordered against the original Defendant with specified apportion…
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.
4 Jun 2020

MOMIN LOK v. HOSPITAL AUTHORITY

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 1052
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCPI981/2014

Given the contemporaneous adverse expert opinions that warfarin treatment was appropriate and did not cause the ischaemic stroke, the plaintiff's contrary belief that warfarin (rather than inadequate dosing) caused the stroke was unreasonable and not justified by evidence before 25 Sep 2011; accordingly she lacked the requisite knowledge under s.27(6) during the disputed period and the action issued 26 Sep 2014 was not time‑barred.

Hong Kong Case Law

LAM SHUI KING v. POLLUTION & PROTECTION SERVICES LTD AND ANOTHER

CHU GREGORY v. YICK NGAI LOGISTICS (HK) CO LTD

LUI CHO YIN v. 雷健邦 AND OTHERS

MOMIN LOK v. HOSPITAL AUTHORITY