CHAN KUNG KEE v. WEN XIAOLING

CHAN KUNG KEE v. WEN XIAOLING

Because the defence did not plead that the seal/document was forged the defendant was not entitled, at that stage, to leave to adduce expert evidence on forgery; the court therefore allowed parties to amend pleadings by consent, set deadlines for those amendments, allocated costs for the respective applications, set aside the trial listing by consent and issued case management directions to enable the trial to proceed fairly and expeditiously.

Citation
CHAN KUNG KEE v. WEN XIAOLING
Parties
Plaintiff (original Action); 1st Defendant (counterclaim): Chan Kung Kee (陳恭己); Defendant (original Action); Plaintiff (counterclaim): Wen Xiaoling (文小玲); 2nd Defendant (counterclaim): Man Huen Yu (文宣茹)
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
5 November 2013
Case Number
HCA1635/2010
Procedural Posture
Civil Action (loan Dispute) / Application for Leave to Adduce Expert Evidence; Application to Amend Pleadings; Case Management Hearing
Outcome
Application for leave to adduce expert evidence not granted as pleaded; court granted leave to amend pleadings by agreement, made case management directions and allocated costs as set out in orders
Legal Topics
Amendment of Pleadings, Expert Evidence, Forgery Allegation, Loan Agreement, Case Management, Costs
Source Language
EN
Civil Procedure Contract Evidence Forensic Document Examination Amendment of Pleadings Expert Evidence Forgery Allegation Loan Agreement +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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Chan Kung Kee (陳恭己)

Plaintiff (original Action); 1st Defendant (counterclaim)

Wen Xiaoling (文小玲)

Defendant (original Action); Plaintiff (counterclaim)

Man Huen Yu (文宣茹)

2nd Defendant (counterclaim)

Procedural Posture

Civil Action (loan Dispute) / Application for Leave to Adduce Expert Evidence; Application to Amend Pleadings; Case Management Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether defendant may adduce expert evidence on alleged forged seal when forgery was not pleaded in the defence
  2. 2 Whether leave to amend pleadings should be granted to enable the defendant to raise forgery and for the plaintiff to plead the written loan agreement
  3. 3 What interlocutory orders, costs orders and case management directions should be made to progress the case

Ratio Decidendi

Because the defence did not plead that the seal/document was forged the defendant was not entitled, at that stage, to leave to adduce expert evidence on forgery; the court therefore allowed parties to amend pleadings by consent, set deadlines for those amendments, allocated costs for the respective applications, set aside the trial listing by consent and issued case management directions to enable the trial to proceed fairly and expeditiously.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to adduce expert evidence not granted as pleaded; court granted leave to amend pleadings by agreement, made case management directions and allocated costs as set out in orders

Orders

  • Leave granted to the plaintiff to amend the Statement of Claim as per the draft submitted and to file and serve the same within 3 days from the date hereof
  • Leave to the defendant to make consequential amendments to the Amended Defence and Counterclaim, including the proposed re-amendment as per the draft attached to the application, and to file and serve the same within 14 days from the date hereof