YAM MAN WAH AND ANOTHER v. YAM WAI CHI SHIRLEY AND ANOTHER

YAM MAN WAH AND ANOTHER v. YAM WAI CHI SHIRLEY AND ANOTHER

The Registrar allowed the application because the proposed Re-Amended Defence and Counterclaim advance alternative pleas which are expressly permitted under Order 18, rule 10 RHC; the amendments did not amount to withdrawal of prior admissions and the Plaintiffs raised no other substantive objection. Accordingly leave was granted subject to a minor correction and costs directions.

Citation
YAM MAN WAH AND ANOTHER v. YAM WAI CHI SHIRLEY AND ANOTHER
Parties
1st Plaintiff: Yam Man Wah; 2nd Plaintiff: Yam Kau Fai; 1st Defendant: Yam Wai Chi Shirley; 2nd Defendant: 任全之
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
20 May 2016
Case Number
HCA1668/2013
Procedural Posture
Civil — Property Dispute (high Court Action No 1668 of 2013) / Chambers Application for Leave to File and Serve Re Amended Defence and Counterclaim
Outcome
Application allowed (leave granted to file and serve Re-Amended Defence and Counterclaim with amendment).
Legal Topics
Amendment of Pleadings, Beneficial Ownership, Constructive Trust, Gift, Undue Influence, Misrepresentation
Source Language
EN
Property Equity Trusts Civil Procedure Costs Amendment of Pleadings Beneficial Ownership Constructive Trust +3 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 4 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Yam Man Wah

1st Plaintiff

Yam Kau Fai

2nd Plaintiff

Yam Wai Chi Shirley

1st Defendant

任全之

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil — Property Dispute (high Court Action No 1668 of 2013) / Chambers Application for Leave to File and Serve Re Amended Defence and Counterclaim

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether leave should be granted to file and serve a Re-Amended Defence and Counterclaim
  2. 2 Whether the proposed amendments amount to withdrawal of prior admissions
  3. 3 Whether alternative pleas are permissible under Order 18, rule 10 RHC

Ratio Decidendi

The Registrar allowed the application because the proposed Re-Amended Defence and Counterclaim advance alternative pleas which are expressly permitted under Order 18, rule 10 RHC; the amendments did not amount to withdrawal of prior admissions and the Plaintiffs raised no other substantive objection. Accordingly leave was granted subject to a minor correction and costs directions.

Court Disposition

Application allowed (leave granted to file and serve Re-Amended Defence and Counterclaim with amendment).

Orders

  • Leave granted to the 2nd Defendant to file and serve the Re-Amended Defence and Counterclaim.
  • In paragraph 4 of the proposed Re-Amended Defence and Counterclaim the word "30" shall read "31".