Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Trial management

Legal area

Court

12 Jan 2026

CARMON REESTRUTURA-ENGENHARIA E SERVIÇOS TÉCNICOS ESPECIAIS (SU) LIMITADA v. CARMON RESTRUTURA LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 404
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1812/2022

VCF was granted for the Defendants' expert witness resident in Angola because travel time and costs amounted to a sound reason and the Plaintiff's expert would also give evidence by VCF; VCF was refused for the local factual witness because childcare obligations of a Hong Kong resident, without evidence of attempts to find a substitute or of inability to give evidence for a few hours and given the importance of courtroom solemnity, did not justify departure from in‑court evidence and the parties could have scheduled a time slot during school hours.
9 Apr 2025

CHIU SZE HO JULIA v. CHOW KWOK KONG EDDIE

Citation

[2025] HKDC 646
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ2713/2020

The oral application for a general stay was dismissed because the defendant proffered only unsupported negotiations which do not meet the threshold of "exceptional" circumstances under PD5.2 §42; absent evidential foundation the milestone trial dates must be kept and the trial shall proceed as scheduled.
17 Dec 2024

XINHUA NEWS MEDIA LTD AND ANOTHER v. JI DAVID WEI AND OTHERS

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 3687
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA391/2022

Leave to rely on Mr Tsui's proposed witness statement was refused because the application was made 17 months after the original witness's resignation with no adequate explanation for the delay or particulars of attempts to secure her attendance, the proposed statement materially expanded on the original evidence in ways central to contested issues and would unfairly prejudice defendants and upset the trial timetable; on balance the court refused the application and ordered costs against plaintiffs.
6 Dec 2024

TUNG PO DECORATION ENGINEERING LTD v. GREAT BRIGHT ENGINEERING LTD

Citation

[2024] HKDC 2081
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ4853/2020

The Costs Order Nisi was varied to no order as to costs because both parties only succeeded on small fractions of their respective claims with no significant disparity; the Plaintiff's primary case failed and its alternative success depended on the Defendant's concessions and an opposing schedule; both parties contributed to the extended trial by introducing late evidence and neither took steps to mitigate its impact; therefore denying costs to both parties proportionately reflects the outcome and conduct.
29 May 2023

LING MAN YIU RAYMOND t/a BUILD TECH ENGINEERING CO v. YAU LUEN METAL WORKS LTD

Citation

[2023] HKDC 735
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ4198/2019

Leave to amend was granted in part and refused in part: ambiguous admission in §4 may be withdrawn and amendment allowed; only the first sentence of §8(2) (that the oral agreement pleaded is vague and lacking particulars) allowed and the remainder disallowed for lack of particulars; time-related allegations (§§9A,13,17) disallowed as insufficiently particular and prejudicial given trial imminence; sentence in §12 and §15A disallowed as embarrassing; interpretation aspect of §22 allowed but the phrase that a document is "outdated" disallowed as opening the door to new evidence and embarrassing…
15 Nov 2022

ECHELLES RIFFIAUD S.A. v. THE SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 3486
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1841/2011

The summons was dismissed and leave to file the 3rd supplemental witness statement and 2nd supplemental list of documents refused because the applicant's delay was inordinate and inexcusable and admission would cause gross prejudice and disruption to the defendant and the trial timetable.
21 Sept 2022

HKSAR v. THAPA KAMALA

Citation

[2022] HKCA 1414
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA366/2020

The Court of Appeal set aside the Deputy Magistrate's costs and wasted costs orders on the ground of apparent bias; it refused the defendant's application for trial costs because her conduct (crossing behind a stationary taxi rather than using nearby facility) brought suspicion upon her, and it refused the prosecution's wasted costs application against counsel while directing referral of counsel and the Deputy Magistrate to professional regulatory bodies.
26 Aug 2022

BALJIT SINGH v. OSCAR BIOENERGY JOINT VENTURE

Citation

[2022] HKDC 904
Court

District Court
Case number

DCEC2047/2020

Consolidation was refused because the defendant's conduct caused unjustified delay of the EC Action undermining the statutory objective of prompt EC relief, the EC Action could be rendered unnecessary by resolution of the PI Action due to the s 26(1) proviso, and a combined trial would be disproportionate and burdensome; accordingly the Summonses were dismissed, the PI Action was prioritized for early trial and the EC Action stayed pending its outcome.
16 Aug 2022

廣豐台業主立案法團 v. NOMINSHARE LTD

Citation

[2022] HKLdT 37
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDBM109/2019

The Respondent failed to take timely steps to ensure attendance of its out-of-jurisdiction witness after trial dates were fixed and delayed informing the court and Applicant, thereby making itself at least partly the author of the adjournment; accordingly the Respondent must pay the Applicant's costs of the adjournment application (to be summarily assessed) and the costs of the summons (to be summarily assessed), and must pay costs thrown away by the adjournment to be taxed on a party-and-party basis if not agreed; indemnity costs are not awarded because pandemic-related factors and the degre…
17 May 2022

香港特別行政區訴葉嘉朗及另十人

Citation

[2022] HKDC 439
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCC771/2020

The application to consolidate DCCC357/2021, DCCC356/2021 and DCCC771/2020 was dismissed because the existing separate trial arrangements were a pragmatic allocation of limited court resources, the prosecution failed to show sufficient reason to change them, and logistical and scheduling constraints (courtroom availability) together with risk of prejudice to defendants weighed against consolidation.