LUSH LTD AND ANOTHER v. RED CHANNEL INTERNATIONAL LTD AND OTHERS

LUSH LTD AND ANOTHER v. RED CHANNEL INTERNATIONAL LTD AND OTHERS

The court refused to permit consequential amendment to the Amended Defence at this stage, holding that it was not appropriate to reopen the matter and that Order 20, rule 11 did not justify the amendment; issues of quantum are to be addressed at the damages assessment case management hearing under Order 37, rule 4; the ReAmended Defence and Counterclaim filed without leave contained no substance and must be set aside.

Citation
LUSH LTD AND ANOTHER v. RED CHANNEL INTERNATIONAL LTD AND OTHERS
Parties
1st Plaintiff: LUSH LIMITED; 2nd Plaintiff: COSTMETIC WARRIORS LIMITED; 1st Defendant: RED CHANNEL INTERNATIONAL LIMITED; 2nd Defendant: OCEAN FAITH INTERNATIONAL TRADING LIMITED; 3rd Defendant: TIFFANY LAU also known as LAU MEI SUN; 4th Defendant: LUSH HONG KONG LIMITED; 5th Defendant: BODY CONCEPTS LIMITED; 6th Defendant: FIRST REGENT TRADING LIMITED; 7th Defendant: LEGEND GLORY CORPORATION LIMITED; 8th Defendant: THE FRESH HANDMADE LIMITED; 9th Defendant: LUSHLY MACAU LIMITED; 10th Defendant: LUSHLY MACAU 2 LIMITED
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
28 July 2015
Case Number
HCA2242/2012
Procedural Posture
High Court Action – Breach of Agreement (contract); Summary Judgment on Liability / Post Summary Judgment; Damages to Be Assessed; Interlocutory Summons to Amend Defence Dismissed
Outcome
Defendants' interlocutory summons of 13 July 2015 dismissed; ReAmended Defence and Counterclaim set aside; costs awarded to plaintiffs
Legal Topics
Amendment of Pleadings, Summary Judgment, Assessment of Damages, Setting Aside Unauthorised Filings, Costs
Source Language
EN
Contract Civil Procedure Remedies Amendment of Pleadings Summary Judgment Assessment of Damages Setting Aside Unauthorised Filings Costs

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 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

LUSH LIMITED

1st Plaintiff

COSTMETIC WARRIORS LIMITED

2nd Plaintiff

RED CHANNEL INTERNATIONAL LIMITED

1st Defendant

OCEAN FAITH INTERNATIONAL TRADING LIMITED

2nd Defendant

TIFFANY LAU also known as LAU MEI SUN

3rd Defendant

LUSH HONG KONG LIMITED

4th Defendant

BODY CONCEPTS LIMITED

5th Defendant

FIRST REGENT TRADING LIMITED

6th Defendant

LEGEND GLORY CORPORATION LIMITED

7th Defendant

THE FRESH HANDMADE LIMITED

8th Defendant

LUSHLY MACAU LIMITED

9th Defendant

LUSHLY MACAU 2 LIMITED

10th Defendant

Procedural Posture

High Court Action – Breach of Agreement (contract); Summary Judgment on Liability / Post Summary Judgment; Damages to Be Assessed; Interlocutory Summons to Amend Defence Dismissed

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether defendants should be permitted consequential amendment to their Amended Defence after plaintiffs were granted leave to amend the Statement of Claim
  2. 2 Whether Order 20, rule 11 permits the proposed consequential amendment at this stage
  3. 3 Whether the question of quantum should be determined in pleadings or at a damages assessment case management hearing

Ratio Decidendi

The court refused to permit consequential amendment to the Amended Defence at this stage, holding that it was not appropriate to reopen the matter and that Order 20, rule 11 did not justify the amendment; issues of quantum are to be addressed at the damages assessment case management hearing under Order 37, rule 4; the ReAmended Defence and Counterclaim filed without leave contained no substance and must be set aside.

Court Disposition

Defendants' interlocutory summons of 13 July 2015 dismissed; ReAmended Defence and Counterclaim set aside; costs awarded to plaintiffs

Orders

  • Dismiss the defendants' summons dated 13 July 2015
  • Set aside the ReAmended Defence and Counterclaim filed and served without leave