FORM PASS LTD v. CHONG PAK CHIU

FORM PASS LTD v. CHONG PAK CHIU

The proposed amendment (paragraph 10(a)) was inadequate because it amounted to a general denial and failed to particularise how the admitted payments were legitimate or made with the claimant's knowledge or consent; given the late stage and the modern restrictive approach to amendments (Kettlemen) the application to amend is dismissed with costs.

Citation
FORM PASS LTD v. CHONG PAK CHIU
Parties
Plaintiff (original Action); Defendant (counterclaim): Form Pass Limited; Defendant (original Action); Plaintiff (counterclaim): Chong Pak Chiu; Defendant (counterclaim): Leung Kwok Hung
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
4 August 2003
Case Number
HCA574/2002
Procedural Posture
Application to Amend Pleadings in Civil Trial / Application Heard at the Commencement of a Fixed Trial (4 August 2003)
Outcome
Application to amend dismissed with costs
Legal Topics
Amendment of Pleadings, Particulars of Defence, Burden of Proof, Late Stage Amendments, Counterclaim
Source Language
EN
Civil Procedure Civil Litigation Fraud and Misappropriation Evidence Amendment of Pleadings Particulars of Defence Burden of Proof Late Stage Amendments +1 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 3 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Form Pass Limited

Plaintiff (original Action); Defendant (counterclaim)

Chong Pak Chiu

Defendant (original Action); Plaintiff (counterclaim)

Leung Kwok Hung

Defendant (counterclaim)

Procedural Posture

Application to Amend Pleadings in Civil Trial / Application Heard at the Commencement of a Fixed Trial (4 August 2003)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the proposed para 10(a) to the Defence to Counterclaim adequately pleaded that payments were legitimate and with the claimant's knowledge and consent
  2. 2 Whether defendants satisfied the burden to justify withdrawals from Kin Yip account
  3. 3 Whether a late-stage amendment of pleadings should be permitted in light of modern restrictive approach (Kettlemen)

Ratio Decidendi

The proposed amendment (paragraph 10(a)) was inadequate because it amounted to a general denial and failed to particularise how the admitted payments were legitimate or made with the claimant's knowledge or consent; given the late stage and the modern restrictive approach to amendments (Kettlemen) the application to amend is dismissed with costs.

Court Disposition

Application to amend dismissed with costs

Orders

  • Application to amend the Defence to Counterclaim (paragraph 10(a)) dismissed
  • Costs awarded against the defendants seeking the amendment