ASSET CHOICE GROUP LTD AND ANOTHER v. ONBOARD TECHNOLOGY LTD AND ANOTHER

ASSET CHOICE GROUP LTD AND ANOTHER v. ONBOARD TECHNOLOGY LTD AND ANOTHER

Leave to amend and to file the second affirmation was refused because the proposed amendments were confused, inconsistent with prior pleadings and prior amendments, inadequately explained by an insufficient affirmation, and would unfairly require the defendants to plead; the master did not err in dismissing the summons.

Citation
ASSET CHOICE GROUP LTD AND ANOTHER v. ONBOARD TECHNOLOGY LTD AND ANOTHER
Parties
1st Plaintiff: Asset Choice Group Limited; 2nd Plaintiff: Tong Chi Keung; 1st Defendant: Onboard Technology Limited; 2nd Defendant: Paul Y Siu
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
27 October 2003
Case Number
HCA3215/2002
Procedural Posture
Appeal Against Master's Refusal to Grant Leave to Amend / Decision on Appeal and Application for Leave to File Further Affirmation
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; leave to file the 2nd affirmation refused; costs ordered nisi to defendants
Legal Topics
Amendment of Pleadings, Leave to Amend, Striking Out, Specific Performance, Joinder
Source Language
EN
Civil Procedure Contract Equity Amendment of Pleadings Leave to Amend Striking Out Specific Performance Joinder

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

Asset Choice Group Limited

1st Plaintiff

Tong Chi Keung

2nd Plaintiff

Onboard Technology Limited

1st Defendant

Paul Y Siu

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Appeal Against Master's Refusal to Grant Leave to Amend / Decision on Appeal and Application for Leave to File Further Affirmation

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether leave to amend the Statement of Claim should be granted
  2. 2 Whether the proposed amendments are intelligible and properly formulated
  3. 3 Whether the half‑page affirmation adequately explains and justifies the new case

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to amend and to file the second affirmation was refused because the proposed amendments were confused, inconsistent with prior pleadings and prior amendments, inadequately explained by an insufficient affirmation, and would unfairly require the defendants to plead; the master did not err in dismissing the summons.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; leave to file the 2nd affirmation refused; costs ordered nisi to defendants

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Refuse leave to file Tong Keung's second affirmation