BEST VIEW MEDICAL CO LTD v. RICHERMEN INTERNATIONAL INVESTMENTS LTD

BEST VIEW MEDICAL CO LTD v. RICHERMEN INTERNATIONAL INVESTMENTS LTD

Leave to amend was granted only to correct typographical errors but the remainder of the proposed amendments (adding waiver and estoppel allegations and related evidence exchange) were refused because they were late, unparticularised, risked prejudicing orderly trial preparation, were unnecessary for disposing of the action or saving costs under O.20 r.8(1A), and the proposed new plea was prima facie unsustainable on the facts and evidence available.

Citation
BEST VIEW MEDICAL CO LTD v. RICHERMEN INTERNATIONAL INVESTMENTS LTD
Parties
Tenant / Plaintiff: Plaintiff; Landlord / Defendant: Defendant
Court
District Court
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
21 December 2016
Case Number
DCCJ1080/2015
Procedural Posture
Landlord and Tenant; Breach of Lease; Civil Claim / Pre Trial Review (application to Amend Pleadings)
Outcome
Application allowed in part: typographical correction permitted; all other proposed amendments refused; no order made on request to exchange further witness statements.
Legal Topics
Amendment of Pleadings, Leave to Amend, Prejudice and Trial Management, Witness Evidence Exchange, Costs
Source Language
EN
Civil Procedure Landlord and Tenant Contract Law Equitable Estoppel Waiver Amendment of Pleadings Leave to Amend Prejudice and Trial Management +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 3 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Plaintiff

Tenant / Plaintiff

Defendant

Landlord / Defendant

Procedural Posture

Landlord and Tenant; Breach of Lease; Civil Claim / Pre Trial Review (application to Amend Pleadings)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether leave should be granted to amend the Reply & Defence to Counterclaim to add waiver and estoppel allegations
  2. 2 Whether the late timing of the application and lack of particulars/further witness drafts justifies refusal
  3. 3 Whether the proposed amendment is necessary for disposing fairly of the matter or for saving costs under O.20 r.8(1A) RDC

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to amend was granted only to correct typographical errors but the remainder of the proposed amendments (adding waiver and estoppel allegations and related evidence exchange) were refused because they were late, unparticularised, risked prejudicing orderly trial preparation, were unnecessary for disposing of the action or saving costs under O.20 r.8(1A), and the proposed new plea was prima facie unsustainable on the facts and evidence available.

Court Disposition

Application allowed in part: typographical correction permitted; all other proposed amendments refused; no order made on request to exchange further witness statements.

Orders

  • Leave granted to amend para 8(d) of the Reply & Defence to Counterclaim by changing the 2nd sentence to: "The works carried out by the plaintiff on or after 28 Feb 2015 were merely the continuation of the said works done by the defendant's contractors"
  • Plaintiff to file and serve its Amended Reply & Defence to Counterclaim within 7 days of the decision date