ERIC CUMINE ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECTS ENGINEERS & SURVEYORS (A FIRM) v. THE WHARF (HOLDINGS) LTD AND ANOTHER

ERIC CUMINE ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECTS ENGINEERS & SURVEYORS (A FIRM) v. THE WHARF (HOLDINGS) LTD AND ANOTHER

The proposed sub-paragraphs 2 and 3 did not introduce new causes of action but constituted further particulars of the pleaded breach (failure to apply for or obtain plot-ratio exemptions); therefore leave to amend the substituted statement of claim was granted because the amendments could be considered without injustice to the defendants and limitation defences were not established on the affidavits before the court.

Citation
ERIC CUMINE ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECTS ENGINEERS & SURVEYORS (A FIRM) v. THE WHARF (HOLDINGS) LTD AND ANOTHER
Parties
First Plaintiff: Wharf Properties Limited; Second Plaintiff: The Wharf (Holdings) Limited; First Defendant: Eric Cumine Associates (Architects, Engineers & Surveyors); Defendants: Others
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
13 May 1987
Case Number
HCCL48/1985
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Amend Substituted Statement of Claim (civil) / Interlocutory (chambers) Pre Trial Amendment Application
Legal Topics
Amendment of Pleadings, Cause of Action, Accrual of Cause of Action, Res Judicata, Statute of Limitations, Costs
Source Language
EN
Civil Procedure Professional Negligence Limitation Law Pleadings Amendment of Pleadings Cause of Action Accrual of Cause of Action Res Judicata +2 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Wharf Properties Limited

First Plaintiff

The Wharf (Holdings) Limited

Second Plaintiff

Eric Cumine Associates (Architects, Engineers & Surveyors)

First Defendant

Others

Defendants

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Amend Substituted Statement of Claim (civil) / Interlocutory (chambers) Pre Trial Amendment Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether proposed amendments introduce new causes of action or are particulars of the pleaded breach
  2. 2 Whether proposed amendments are statute-barred at the date of the writ or before 27 July 1984
  3. 3 Whether the court has power to permit the amendment where a defendant may have an accrued limitation defence (Limitation Ordinance s.35(3))

Ratio Decidendi

The proposed sub-paragraphs 2 and 3 did not introduce new causes of action but constituted further particulars of the pleaded breach (failure to apply for or obtain plot-ratio exemptions); therefore leave to amend the substituted statement of claim was granted because the amendments could be considered without injustice to the defendants and limitation defences were not established on the affidavits before the court.