KWAN KWOK KI v. TANG SHING BOR AND ANOTHER

KWAN KWOK KI v. TANG SHING BOR AND ANOTHER

The contested paragraphs of the Re-Amended Defence were disallowed because they were not consequential upon Kwan's Amended Statement of Claim as permitted by the consent order; matters rooted in alleged late discovery are not properly the subject of consequential pleadings and, if appropriate, may be pursued at cross-examination but not by the impugned amendments.

Citation
KWAN KWOK KI v. TANG SHING BOR AND ANOTHER
Parties
Plaintiff in HCA 1465/2012; 3rd Defendant in HCA 85/2013: KWAN KWOK KI; 1st Defendant in HCA 1465/2012: TANG SHING BOR; 2nd Defendant in HCA 1465/2012; Plaintiff in HCA 85/2013: KAISER 2000 LIMITED; 1st Defendant in HCA 85/2013: WEALTHY VANTAGE LIMITED; 2nd Defendant in HCA 85/2013: GOLDEN FIELD HOLDINGS LIMITED
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
18 October 2016
Case Number
HCA1465/2012
Procedural Posture
Consolidated Civil High Court Actions Concerning Joint Venture and Counterclaim / Interlocutory Summons to Disallow Amendments to Re Amended Defence (pre Trial)
Outcome
The amendments in the Re-Amended Consolidated Defence filed 5 October 2016 (paragraphs 28(c)(ii)-(iv), 28(ca), 28(cb) and 42(ca)(ii)) were disallowed.
Legal Topics
Amendment of Pleadings, Consequential Amendments, Prejudice From Late Amendments, Particulars, Failure to Comply With Discovery
Source Language
EN
Civil Procedure Pleadings Discovery Contract Law Company/commercial Law Amendment of Pleadings Consequential Amendments Prejudice From Late Amendments +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 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

KWAN KWOK KI

Plaintiff in HCA 1465/2012; 3rd Defendant in HCA 85/2013

TANG SHING BOR

1st Defendant in HCA 1465/2012

KAISER 2000 LIMITED

2nd Defendant in HCA 1465/2012; Plaintiff in HCA 85/2013

WEALTHY VANTAGE LIMITED

1st Defendant in HCA 85/2013

GOLDEN FIELD HOLDINGS LIMITED

2nd Defendant in HCA 85/2013

Procedural Posture

Consolidated Civil High Court Actions Concerning Joint Venture and Counterclaim / Interlocutory Summons to Disallow Amendments to Re Amended Defence (pre Trial)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the contested amendments to the Re-Amended Defence were consequential upon the Amended Statement of Claim
  2. 2 Whether allowing the amendments would cause unfair prejudice to the applicant by depriving him of the opportunity to address the matters by pleadings or evidence before trial
  3. 3 Whether matters arising from alleged failure to comply with discovery can properly be pleaded as particulars in a re-amended defence

Ratio Decidendi

The contested paragraphs of the Re-Amended Defence were disallowed because they were not consequential upon Kwan's Amended Statement of Claim as permitted by the consent order; matters rooted in alleged late discovery are not properly the subject of consequential pleadings and, if appropriate, may be pursued at cross-examination but not by the impugned amendments.

Court Disposition

The amendments in the Re-Amended Consolidated Defence filed 5 October 2016 (paragraphs 28(c)(ii)-(iv), 28(ca), 28(cb) and 42(ca)(ii)) were disallowed.

Orders

  • Disallow the amendments contained in paragraphs 28(c)(ii)-(iv), 28(ca), 28(cb) and 42(ca)(ii) of the Re-Amended Consolidated Defence filed on 5 October 2016.