Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Striking out for delay

Legal area

Court

29 Jun 2021

WONG CHUN KIT AND ANOTHER v. CHENG KWONG FAT AND OTHERS

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 2077
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCW366/2017

Given the existence of provisional liquidators and absence of a strike-out application, the court exercised its discretion to grant a conditional extension: petitioners allowed 24 hours to file the outstanding affirmations on pain of strike out; if filed, respondents given 35 days to serve opposing affirmations and petitioners 28 days to reply; costs awarded to the 1st–3rd respondents of HK$1,040 on each summons payable forthwith.
20 May 2015

CIL HOLDINGS LTD v. KWOK HAN QIAO formerly known as KWOK WAI TAK EDWARD

Citation

CIL HOLDINGS LTD v. KWOK HAN QIAO formerly known as KWOK WAI TAK EDWARD
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FAMV62/2014

Leave to appeal was refused because the Court of Final Appeal concluded there was no point of law of sufficient general importance: dismissals for want of prosecution are discretionary and properly subject to the 'plainly wrong' appellate standard; the Court of Appeal correctly applied that standard and was entitled to find that the judge below was plainly wrong in failing to recognise that lengthy inexcusable delay had caused prejudice by depriving the defendant of potentially important witness evidence, creating a substantial risk of no fair trial.
17 Jul 2014

LI SHIU TO v. LI SHIU TSANG AND ANOTHER

Citation

LI SHIU TO v. LI SHIU TSANG AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA416/2003

Leave to appeal denied because the appellant could not show reasonable prospects of success nor any compelling interest of justice: the judge did not err in principle or in fact, the substantive striking out summons lacked merit, prior opportunities had been given and the absence of witness evidence (including death of LST) did not create a basis for leave.
20 Jun 2013

LAM SIK YING v. LAM SIK SHI AND ANOTHER

Citation

LAM SIK YING v. LAM SIK SHI AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA4713/2001

Although there was inordinate delay, the 1st defendant failed to demonstrate abuse of the court's process as required by Wing Fai; therefore the striking out was not justified and there is no basis to depart from the ordinary rule that costs follow the event; the Costs Order nisi is made absolute.
7 Nov 2008

DBS BANK (HONG KONG) LTD v. GARY K.W. TAM t/a GARY K.W. TAM & CO (a firm)

Citation

DBS BANK (HONG KONG) LTD v. GARY K.W. TAM t/a GARY K.W. TAM & CO (a firm)
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2987/2003

The action was dismissed because the plaintiff engaged in prolonged, inexcusable and contumelious delays and breaches of a consent order that caused prejudice (including likely fading witness memory), demonstrating an abuse of process and no intention to bring the proceedings to an end; settlement negotiations did not justify the inactivity.
22 Oct 2003

TECH FOCUS LTD v. AUSTRIA PROPERTY MANAGEMENT LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

TECH FOCUS LTD v. AUSTRIA PROPERTY MANAGEMENT LTD AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV130/2003

The Court set aside the striking out and the injunction because the defendants had made material efforts to obtain inspection (31 March letter) which the plaintiff declined, the delay was not so serious as to warrant driving the defendants from the judgment seat, and expert evidence raised disputed factual issues (including possible illegal structures) that required resolution before ordering mandatory relief; accordingly the defence was restored while the costs order was left intact.
3 Apr 2000

LEE SHUET MAY v. YU CHAU LEUNG

Citation

LEE SHUET MAY v. YU CHAU LEUNG
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA10914/1995

The defendant's strike‑out application was dismissed because, on the facts, the delay was not so inexcusable as to justify striking out and the defendant failed to demonstrate substantial prejudice or a real risk of an unfair trial; consolidation was not ordered formally because there were no common issues, but for convenience both actions were to be heard by the same judge.
17 Mar 2000

NATHANIEL HYMER v. THE MASS TRANSIT RAILWAY CORPORATION AND OTHERS

Citation

NATHANIEL HYMER v. THE MASS TRANSIT RAILWAY CORPORATION AND OTHERS
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV304/1999

Although the Court of Appeal accepted there were periods of inordinate and inexcusable delay, the judge erred in failing to consider the impact of continuing proceedings and the inconsistency of striking out the doctors while allowing corporate defendants to remain given the substantial overlap of issues and the high likelihood of third party proceedings re‑bringing the doctors into litigation. On that basis the dismissal of the 4th and 5th defendants was set aside and the discretion exercised afresh in favour of reinstating the claims against them.
11 Dec 1975

CHAN CHING-CHONG v. CHAN KWAN-LAI AND ANOTHER

Citation

CHAN CHING-CHONG v. CHAN KWAN-LAI AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1133/1968

Although there was inordinate and inexcusable delay by the Plaintiff's solicitors, the Defendants failed to demonstrate sufficient prejudice given the admission of liability; accordingly the Registrar's order striking out was reversed and the action restored for assessment of damages.