4 Nov 2021
The appeal was dismissed (Notice of Appeal struck out) because it was filed out of time, constituted an abuse of process given prior concluded proceedings and refusals, and had no reasonably arguable grounds; under Order 1A r1(f) the court may and should refuse to allocate resources to such hopeless and abusive applications even if procedural errors might exist.
12 Feb 2018
The judge was plainly right that Yangon was the clearly and distinctly more appropriate forum; the plaintiffs unreasonably failed to issue a protective writ in Myanmar; the court properly declined to impose a condition that the defendant waive any time-bar; leave to appeal was refused and the summons dismissed.
7 Oct 2016
Leave to appeal was refused because there was no real prospect of success: fresh leave applications were properly treated as new applications (administrative case numbers irrelevant), the 6‑month Magistrates Ordinance limitation and sentencing cap for summary offences do not apply by analogy to committal for criminal contempt, non‑disclosure of the prior lapse was not material in the circumstances, and no legitimate expectation arose from the summary charges.
20 May 2003
Section 10(6)(b)(iii) is an evidential provision only and does not impose an additional jurisdictional constraint that would prevent committal or extradition on the basis that the prosecution would be time-barred in Hong Kong; application for certificate and leave to appeal dismissed.
19 Nov 2001
The magistrate's committal was lawful because he was entitled to decide based on the authority to proceed and the totality of conduct shown on the supporting documents without giving detailed reasons or examining the foreign indictment for limitation/time-bar issues; the double criminality and money laundering descriptions were satisfied by the conduct-based approach in the US-Hong Kong Order and Hong Kong law permits liability via innocent agents.
4 Jun 1991
The bills of lading are governed by Japanese law (inferred from clauses and connections with Japan) and, after construing the bills in their entirety including the valid demise clause, the bills are shipowners' bills; as a consequence the defendants are entitled to the contractual protections including the one‑year time bar, and the plaintiffs' claim is defeated.
7 Mar 1991
Although the Court of Appeal found the trial judge erred in principle in rejecting the defendants' undertakings out of hand, on exercise of the court's own discretion the connections to New York did not outweigh the concrete disadvantages to the plaintiffs (delay, costs, uncertainty about security and time-bar, Chapter 11 stay issues). The appeal was dismissed and the stay refused; trial in Hong Kong best served the interests of all parties and ends of justice.
24 Jan 1983
Clause 36 of the Bill of Lading governs the one‑year time bar; 'suit is brought' is satisfied where a suit is brought in respect of the particular cargo by someone claiming as owner against someone sued as carrier, which stops time running and permits correction or joinder of alternative claimants/defendants; the court has jurisdiction and a discretion to permit joinder after expiry and, applying the factors, the discretion should be exercised to allow the 2nd defendant to remain.