Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Time bars

Legal area

Court

23 Apr 2021

LAMA RINA v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2021] HKCA 547
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP140/2020

Although the applicant's delay in filing the appeal was excusable, she failed to demonstrate a reasonable prospect of success in the intended judicial review because she produced no reasonably arguable grounds to challenge the Board's factual and credibility findings or to show error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality; accordingly extension of time was refused and the summons dismissed.
6 Aug 2020

PROGETTO JEWELLERY CO LTD v. LAU CHIU YING AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 1835
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2548/2014

A stay of execution was refused because the applicant failed to show an arguable appeal with reasonable prospects and failed to produce evidence of real prejudice; alternatively a stay would only be granted upon payment of all judgment sums into court within 14 days, and absent such payment the stay would not be granted.
19 Dec 2013

POSSEHL ELECTRONICS HONG KONG LTD v. CHINA TAIPING INSURANCE (HK) CO LTD

Citation

POSSEHL ELECTRONICS HONG KONG LTD v. CHINA TAIPING INSURANCE (HK) CO LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2354/2012

The court held that Condition 12 of the Property Policy plainly required any action or arbitration to be commenced within 12 months of the happening of the loss (4 June 2011); Possehl did not commence action or arbitration within that period and therefore the claims are barred. The arbitration notice was invalid because the arbitration clause applied only to disputes as to the amount payable and no such dispute arose where the insurer rejected liability in toto. The Business Interruption Policy's condition precedent was also unmet. Accordingly the Statement of Claim was struck out and the Act…
25 Jan 1996

CHUNG LUNG SHUN v. ADAMS PARKING (INTERNATIONAL) LTD

Citation

CHUNG LUNG SHUN v. ADAMS PARKING (INTERNATIONAL) LTD
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV160/1995

The Court of Appeal held that s.14(1)'s 24‑month limit applies expressly to applications under s.18A(2) and does not apply to appeals under s.18; appeals under s.18 are governed by the separate six‑month limitation in s.18(2) (measured from the decision or certificate), accordingly the appellant's s.18 appeal was not time‑barred and the District Court order dismissing the proceedings was wrongly made.
13 Dec 1985

THE OWNERS OF CARGO LATELY LADEN ON BOARD THE SHIP OR VESSEL "ADHIGUNA MERANTI" v. THE OWNERS OF THE SHIPS OR VESSELS "ADHIGUNA HARAPAN" AND OTHERS

Citation

THE OWNERS OF CARGO LATELY LADEN ON BOARD THE SHIP OR VESSEL "ADHIGUNA MERANTI" v. THE OWNERS OF THE SHIPS OR VESSELS "ADHIGUNA HARAPAN" AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAJ162/1983

Defendants established Indonesia as a more convenient forum but failed to negate real juridical disadvantages that plaintiffs would suffer if Hong Kong proceedings were stayed: loss of benefit under Merchant Shipping Act s.503 (higher tonnage limitation), loss of taxed costs assessed by the Hong Kong taxing officer, and loss of judge‑determined interest rate. The offered undertakings did not sufficiently and reliably neutralize those disadvantages. Accordingly the stay application was refused. The court also held the governing law of the tort is Taiwan (lex loci delicti) and accepted that Ind…

Hong Kong Case Law

LAMA RINA v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE AND ANOTHER

PROGETTO JEWELLERY CO LTD v. LAU CHIU YING AND ANOTHER

POSSEHL ELECTRONICS HONG KONG LTD v. CHINA TAIPING INSURANCE (HK) CO LTD

CHUNG LUNG SHUN v. ADAMS PARKING (INTERNATIONAL) LTD

THE OWNERS OF CARGO LATELY LADEN ON BOARD THE SHIP OR VESSEL "ADHIGUNA MERANTI" v. THE OWNERS OF THE SHIPS OR VESSELS "ADHIGUNA HARAPAN" AND OTHERS