TSUI PING SUM AND ANOTHER v. CHAN KA LOK AND OTHERS

TSUI PING SUM AND ANOTHER v. CHAN KA LOK AND OTHERS

The amendments were allowed because the proposed re‑amendments did not introduce new causes of action but particularised primary facts and overt acts sufficient to permit reasonable inferences of conspiracy and dishonesty at trial, met the ADS requirements for pleading conspiracy, avoided impermissible rolled‑up...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2026] HKCFI 1966
Parties
1st Plaintiff: Tsui Ping Sum (徐秉沁); 2nd Plaintiff: Sky Unique Development Company Limited (天唯發展有限公司); 1st Defendant: Chan Ka-Lok (陳家洛); 2nd Defendant: Chan Ka-Yeung (陳家揚); 3rd Defendant: Chan Yun-On (陳潤安); 4th Defendant: Ho Nyat Djun Julia; 5th Defendant: Tsui Ping Chi (徐秉慈); 6th Defendant: Wong Po Shan (黃寶珊); 7th Defendant: Chan Choi Shing (陳再盛)
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
9 April 2026
Case Number
HCA432/2021
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Appeal (amendment of Pleadings) / Rehearing and Decision on Proposed Re‑amendments to Re‑amended Statement of Claim
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part; Master Isaac Chan's order dated 18 November 2025 set aside insofar as it refused the specified re‑amendments
Legal Topics
Amendment of Pleadings, Fraudulent Misrepresentation, Conspiracy to Defraud, Constructive Trust, Pleading Particularity, Costs
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Equity Tort Contract Construction Law Amendment of Pleadings Fraudulent Misrepresentation Conspiracy to Defraud +3 more

Source-derived case record

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 5 Authorities cited 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Tsui Ping Sum (徐秉沁)

1st Plaintiff

Sky Unique Development Company Limited (天唯發展有限公司)

2nd Plaintiff

Chan Ka-Lok (陳家洛)

1st Defendant

Chan Ka-Yeung (陳家揚)

2nd Defendant

Chan Yun-On (陳潤安)

3rd Defendant

Ho Nyat Djun Julia

4th Defendant

Tsui Ping Chi (徐秉慈)

5th Defendant

Wong Po Shan (黃寶珊)

6th Defendant

Chan Choi Shing (陳再盛)

7th Defendant

Procedural Posture

Interlocutory Appeal (amendment of Pleadings) / Rehearing and Decision on Proposed Re‑amendments to Re‑amended Statement of Claim

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether proposed re‑amendments alleging conspiracy and fraud were permitted despite delay and potential lack of particularity
  2. 2 Whether fraud and/or negligence and statutory misrepresentation claims against individual defendants were pleaded with sufficient clarity (no rolled‑up pleas)
  3. 3 Whether a constructive trust claim against landowners could be maintained at pleading stage given alleged unjust enrichment and knowledge

Ratio Decidendi

The amendments were allowed because the proposed re‑amendments did not introduce new causes of action but particularised primary facts and overt acts sufficient to permit reasonable inferences of conspiracy and dishonesty at trial, met the ADS requirements for pleading conspiracy, avoided impermissible rolled‑up formulations by separately pleading fraud, negligence and statutory misrepresentation, and the constructive trust claim could not be precluded at pleading stage as it depended on factual findings about unjust enrichment and knowledge; accordingly the Master’s refusal as to those parts was set aside and costs orders were made.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part; Master Isaac Chan's order dated 18 November 2025 set aside insofar as it refused the specified re‑amendments

Orders

  • Agreed draft order to be submitted for approval within 7 days of decision
  • Order nisi: costs of and occasioned by the amendment to be paid by the Defendants in any event, to be taxed if not agreed