VON BESCHERER, MATHIAS KURT v. SUBRA INTERNATIONAL LTD AND ANOTHER

VON BESCHERER, MATHIAS KURT v. SUBRA INTERNATIONAL LTD AND ANOTHER

The appeal was allowed because the proposed amendments were clarificatory rather than introducing new pleaded causes of action, the 1st defendant had been informed of the ambit of the case (including by correspondence), the particulars provided were the best available prior to discovery, and it would be unjust to restrict the plaintiffs' claim at this stage; accordingly leave to re-amend was granted and costs were allocated as stated.

Citation
VON BESCHERER, MATHIAS KURT v. SUBRA INTERNATIONAL LTD AND ANOTHER
Parties
1st Plaintiff (also 1st Defendant in Hca3834/2003): SUBRA INTERNATIONAL LIMITED; 2nd Plaintiff (also 2nd Defendant in Hca3834/2003): DICOTA FAR EAST LIMITED; 1st Defendant (and Plaintiff in Hca3834/2003): MATHIAS KURT VON BESCHERER; 2nd Defendant: MATI-MARK LIMITED
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
1 June 2007
Case Number
HCA3834/2003
Procedural Posture
Consolidated Civil Actions (employment Contract and Fiduciary Duty) / Appeal Against Masters Refusal to Grant Leave to Re Amend Statement of Claim (heard in Chambers Before Burrell J)
Outcome
Appeal allowed; leave granted to re-amend the statement of claim
Legal Topics
Amendment of Pleadings, Leave to Amend, Particularity in Pleading, Costs Orders
Source Language
EN
Civil Procedure Employment Law Fiduciary Duty Contract Law Amendment of Pleadings Leave to Amend Particularity in Pleading Costs Orders

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 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

SUBRA INTERNATIONAL LIMITED

1st Plaintiff (also 1st Defendant in Hca3834/2003)

DICOTA FAR EAST LIMITED

2nd Plaintiff (also 2nd Defendant in Hca3834/2003)

MATHIAS KURT VON BESCHERER

1st Defendant (and Plaintiff in Hca3834/2003)

MATI-MARK LIMITED

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Consolidated Civil Actions (employment Contract and Fiduciary Duty) / Appeal Against Masters Refusal to Grant Leave to Re Amend Statement of Claim (heard in Chambers Before Burrell J)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether leave should be granted to re-amend the statement of claim
  2. 2 Whether proposed amendments lack sufficient particularity
  3. 3 Whether the amendments expand the claim unfairly prior to discovery

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was allowed because the proposed amendments were clarificatory rather than introducing new pleaded causes of action, the 1st defendant had been informed of the ambit of the case (including by correspondence), the particulars provided were the best available prior to discovery, and it would be unjust to restrict the plaintiffs' claim at this stage; accordingly leave to re-amend was granted and costs were allocated as stated.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; leave granted to re-amend the statement of claim

Orders

  • Leave granted to the plaintiffs to re-amend the statement of claim in the terms sought
  • The costs of and occasioned by the amendments to be to the 1st defendant in any event