CHAN MEI LIN AND OTHERS v. LEE HONG

CHAN MEI LIN AND OTHERS v. LEE HONG

Application to withdraw admission was refused because there was no credible evidence (direct or expert) supporting the forgery allegation, the challenge was raised after undue and unexplained delay and not in good faith, and allowing it would prejudice plaintiffs. Proposed amendments that merely updated pleaded unauthorized works were allowed, but proposed new complaints alleging wrongful exclusive possession and further exclusion (post-2001) were disallowed as they constituted new causes of action that were time-barred and the plaintiffs had a reasonably arguable limitation defence. Costs were ordered against the applicant.

Citation
CHAN MEI LIN AND OTHERS v. LEE HONG
Parties
1st Plaintiff: CHAN MEI LIN; 2nd Plaintiff: LEE HOK; 3rd Plaintiff: LEE SZE HUNG; 4th Plaintiff; 1st Defendant (by Counterclaim): LEE HOK CHUEN; 5th Plaintiff; 2nd Defendant (by Counterclaim): LEE TSUN, FRANKIE; Defendant (original Action); Plaintiff (by Counterclaim): LEE HONG
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
26 January 2015
Case Number
HCA2861/2001
Procedural Posture
Civil Action (land Dispute; Counterclaim) / Interlocutory Application to Amend Defence and Counterclaim (pre Trial)
Outcome
Application partially granted and partially refused
Legal Topics
Amendment of Pleadings, Withdrawal of Admission, Limitation Defence, Adverse Possession, Trespass, Fiduciary Duty, Forgery Allegation, Injunctions, Costs
Source Language
EN
Property Law Civil Procedure Equity Tort Law Limitation Law Amendment of Pleadings Withdrawal of Admission Limitation Defence +6 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 5 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

CHAN MEI LIN

1st Plaintiff

LEE HOK

2nd Plaintiff

LEE SZE HUNG

3rd Plaintiff

LEE HOK CHUEN

4th Plaintiff; 1st Defendant (by Counterclaim)

LEE TSUN, FRANKIE

5th Plaintiff; 2nd Defendant (by Counterclaim)

LEE HONG

Defendant (original Action); Plaintiff (by Counterclaim)

Procedural Posture

Civil Action (land Dispute; Counterclaim) / Interlocutory Application to Amend Defence and Counterclaim (pre Trial)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether defendant may withdraw an admission of authenticity of a letter and allege forgery
  2. 2 Whether proposed amendments introduce new causes of action that are time-barred under the Limitation Ordinance Cap.347
  3. 3 Whether proposed trespass and exclusive possession allegations are merely particulars of existing pleadings or new claims requiring leave under section 35 LO and Order 20 r.5 RHC

Ratio Decidendi

Application to withdraw admission was refused because there was no credible evidence (direct or expert) supporting the forgery allegation, the challenge was raised after undue and unexplained delay and not in good faith, and allowing it would prejudice plaintiffs. Proposed amendments that merely updated pleaded unauthorized works were allowed, but proposed new complaints alleging wrongful exclusive possession and further exclusion (post-2001) were disallowed as they constituted new causes of action that were time-barred and the plaintiffs had a reasonably arguable limitation defence. Costs were ordered against the applicant.

Court Disposition

Application partially granted and partially refused

Orders

  • Leave granted for defendant (Lee Hong) to file and serve Amended Defence and Counterclaim excluding the disallowed amendments within 28 days
  • Plaintiffs to file and serve Amended Reply and Defence to Counterclaim within 28 days thereafter, limited to consequential amendments necessitated by the defendant's amendments