Commercial Law

In Shanghai Metgoal Industrial Co. Ltd. (formerly known as Shanghai Pucakon Industrial Co. Ltd.) & Ors v Luk Suet Yim & Anor [2026] HKCFI 3996, the Court (per DHCJ Ng Jern-fei, KC) emphasised the need for ensuring the fair distribution of finite judicial resources in the context of interlocutory applications before trial for adjournment, giving of evidence via video-link, and stay of proceedings pending restoration of a dissolved company back onto the companies’ register. 

The Plaintiffs applied for adjournment of trial on the last working day before the trial was due to commence, on the basis that 9 out of 12 of their factual witnesses could not be located and another witness had died. The Court held that the Plaintiffs failed to clear the high threshold of exceptional circumstances that would warrant an adjournment of trial date, emphasising that where the missing witnesses could not be found an adjournment would not help. The Court refused to grant the adjournment which if granted would inevitably have an impact on other cases that are pending before the courts. 

The Plaintiffs also applied for the remaining witnesses to give evidence by way of video-link in the event the adjournment application is dismissed. The Court granted such application so as to enable the trial to proceed and to ensure that there is a fair opportunity for the evidence of the Plaintiffs’ witnesses to be examined orally, in order to strike the right balance between expedition and fairness. 

The Plaintiffs also applied for the action to be stayed against the 2nd Defendant, a BVI entity which was discovered to have been dissolved. The Court allowed the application, emphasising that his decision would be consistent with the expedition/fairness decision matrix in allowing the trial to progress as scheduled and without causing any unfairness to any party given that the defence would not have been run differently even if the BVI company had not been dissolved.  

In so doing, the Court highlighted the salient principles relevant to stay applications, including that (i) where one of the parties has ceased to exist, the continuation of proceedings involving such a party would constitute a nullity; and (ii) in cases involving deregistered corporate litigants, the decision whether to grant a stay was a matter of discretion, but generally the approach is to stay the proceedings pending application for the company’s restoration to the register, as opposed to dismissing the action.  

Chan Chi Hung S.C., leading Man Hon Chiu and Tiffany Yau, instructed by Liva Law & Associates, appeared for the 1st Defendant. 

Chan Chi Hung SC

Chan Chi Hung S.C. graduated in 1983 with a Bachelor of Laws (second upper) (Hons) from the London School of Economics, University of London. After completing the PCLL at the University of Hong Kong he was called to the Hong Kong Bar in 1984. Chi Hung was appointed Senior Counsel in 2005, and has over 3 decades of civil litigation experience in trust, probate, lands, companies, and commercial disputes.

Visit Chan Chi Hung SC’s profile for more details.

Tiffany Yau

Tiffany is a Charles Ching Scholar. She joined Chambers in 2021 after completing her pupillage with Mr Chan Chi Hung SC, Mr Clement Lau, Mr Earl Deng, Mr Tim Parker and Mr Justin Ho.

Tiffany obtained her LLB from the Chinese University of Hong Kong with First Class Honours. She went on to obtain her BCL from the University of Oxford with Merit overall and Distinction in Commercial Remedies.

Before being called to the Bar, Tiffany was a Judicial Assistant to the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal from 2019 to 2020.

Tiffany is developing a broad practice and accepts instructions in all areas of Chambers’ work. She is fluent in English, Cantonese and Mandarin.

View Tiffany’s profile for more details. 

This article was first published on 15 July 2026.

Disclaimer: This article does not constitute legal advice and seeks to set out the general principles of the law. Detailed advice should therefore be sought from a legal professional relating to the individual merits and facts of a particular case. The photographs which appear in this article are included for decorative purposes only and should not be taken as a depiction of any matter to which the case is related. The views and opinions expressed in this article/material are solely those of the members authoring it and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of Denis Chang’s Chambers, or of any other member or members of Denis Chang’s Chambers.