CHAN KUNG KEE v. WEN XIAOLING

CHAN KUNG KEE v. WEN XIAOLING

The court found the omission to award pre-judgment interest was a slip in expressing its manifest intention, the plaintiff had claimed such interest, there was no prejudice or intervening circumstance rendering amendment inequitable, and therefore the judgment was properly amended under the slip rule to award interest from the date of writ to the date before judgment at 5% per annum and thereafter at judgment rate until payment.

Citation
CHAN KUNG KEE v. WEN XIAOLING
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
4 May 2015
Case Number
HCA1635/2010
Procedural Posture
Civil Claim for Recovery of Money With Counterclaim / Post Judgment Application to Amend Judgment Under Slip Rule to Award Pre Judgment Interest
Outcome
Application granted to amend judgment under the slip rule; pre-judgment interest awarded from date of writ to day before judgment and judgment rate to apply thereafter; original judgment sum affirmed and counterclaim dismissed.
Legal Topics
Pre Judgment Interest, Slip Rule (order 20, R 11), High Court Ordinance S48, Discretion to Refuse Amendment
Source Language
EN
Civil Procedure Remedies Commercial Law Pre Judgment Interest Slip Rule (order 20, R 11) High Court Ordinance S48 Discretion to Refuse Amendment

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

Procedural Posture

Civil Claim for Recovery of Money With Counterclaim / Post Judgment Application to Amend Judgment Under Slip Rule to Award Pre Judgment Interest

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court may amend its order under the slip rule to award pre-judgment interest
  2. 2 Whether interest should run from date of writ to date before judgment
  3. 3 Whether the court should exercise discretion to refuse relief under the slip rule because of intervening prejudice or inequity

Ratio Decidendi

The court found the omission to award pre-judgment interest was a slip in expressing its manifest intention, the plaintiff had claimed such interest, there was no prejudice or intervening circumstance rendering amendment inequitable, and therefore the judgment was properly amended under the slip rule to award interest from the date of writ to the date before judgment at 5% per annum and thereafter at judgment rate until payment.

Court Disposition

Application granted to amend judgment under the slip rule; pre-judgment interest awarded from date of writ to day before judgment and judgment rate to apply thereafter; original judgment sum affirmed and counterclaim dismissed.

Orders

  • Interest to run from 3 November 2010 (date of writ) to 26 February 2015 (day before judgment) at 5% per annum and thereafter from 27 February 2015 at judgment rate until payment; the judgment is amended accordingly.
  • Original judgment for the plaintiff in the sum of $3,000,000 is affirmed with interest as ordered; counterclaim dismissed.