KUDETA LTD AND OTHERS v. CHRIS AU AND OTHERS

KUDETA LTD AND OTHERS v. CHRIS AU AND OTHERS

The judge exercised discretion to allow the plaintiffs to amend their pleadings because the amendments clarified and narrowed issues without introducing new issues, abridged time for service and dispensed with service of the amended documents, set specific and shorter time limits for consequential amendments (28 days) and for experts' engagement, and allocated costs against specified parties as set out in the order.

Citation
KUDETA LTD AND OTHERS v. CHRIS AU AND OTHERS
Parties
1st Plaintiff (hca 183/2014); 1st Defendant (counterclaim): Komal Patel; 2nd Plaintiff (hca 183/2014); 2nd Defendant (counterclaim): Jason Mark Cohen; 3rd Plaintiff (hca 183/2014); 3rd Defendant (counterclaim): Harilaos Apostolides; 4th Plaintiff (hca 183/2014); 4th Defendant (counterclaim): Rocky Cape International Limited; 1st Defendant (hca 183/2014 & HCA 2063/2015); Plaintiff (counterclaim): Chris Au; 2nd Defendant (hca 183/2014 & HCA 2063/2015): Ho Ching Yi Elsa; 3rd Defendant (hca 183/2014 & HCA 2063/2015); 7th Defendant (counterclaim): Retribution Limited; 5th Defendant (counterclaim in HCA 183/2014); 1st Plaintiff (counterclaim to Counterclaim): Essence Investments Limited; 6th Defendant (counterclaim in HCA 183/2014); 2nd Plaintiff (counterclaim to Counterclaim): Yew Kuan Cheong; 3rd Defendant (counterclaim to Counterclaim); 4th Defendant (hca 2063/2015): Prime Mark Group Limited; 1st Plaintiff (hca 2063/2015): Kudeta Limited; 2nd Plaintiff (hca 2063/2015): Iconic Locations Singapore Pte Ltd; 3rd Plaintiff (hca 2063/2015): Iconic Entertainment Pte Ltd
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
5 July 2016
Case Number
HCA2063/2015
Procedural Posture
Civil Consolidated Actions / Interlocutory Applications Heard in Chambers; Case Management Directions
Outcome
Applications granted in part with detailed directions: amendments permitted, service dispensed with or abridged, deadlines set for pleadings and expert procedures, and costs allocated as ordered.
Legal Topics
Amendment of Pleadings, Service and Abridgement of Time, Consequential Amendments, Experts' Joint Written Note, Case Management Timetable
Source Language
EN
Civil Procedure Court Practice and Case Management Evidence (expert Evidence) Costs Amendment of Pleadings Service and Abridgement of Time Consequential Amendments Experts' Joint Written Note +1 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 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Komal Patel

1st Plaintiff (hca 183/2014); 1st Defendant (counterclaim)

Jason Mark Cohen

2nd Plaintiff (hca 183/2014); 2nd Defendant (counterclaim)

Harilaos Apostolides

3rd Plaintiff (hca 183/2014); 3rd Defendant (counterclaim)

Rocky Cape International Limited

4th Plaintiff (hca 183/2014); 4th Defendant (counterclaim)

Chris Au

1st Defendant (hca 183/2014 & HCA 2063/2015); Plaintiff (counterclaim)

Ho Ching Yi Elsa

2nd Defendant (hca 183/2014 & HCA 2063/2015)

Retribution Limited

3rd Defendant (hca 183/2014 & HCA 2063/2015); 7th Defendant (counterclaim)

Essence Investments Limited

5th Defendant (counterclaim in HCA 183/2014); 1st Plaintiff (counterclaim to Counterclaim)

Yew Kuan Cheong

6th Defendant (counterclaim in HCA 183/2014); 2nd Plaintiff (counterclaim to Counterclaim)

Prime Mark Group Limited

3rd Defendant (counterclaim to Counterclaim); 4th Defendant (hca 2063/2015)

Kudeta Limited

1st Plaintiff (hca 2063/2015)

Iconic Locations Singapore Pte Ltd

2nd Plaintiff (hca 2063/2015)

Iconic Entertainment Pte Ltd

3rd Plaintiff (hca 2063/2015)

Procedural Posture

Civil Consolidated Actions / Interlocutory Applications Heard in Chambers; Case Management Directions

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether leave should be granted to amend pleadings
  2. 2 Whether the proposed amendments introduce new issues or merely clarify/narrow issues
  3. 3 Appropriate time limits for consequential amendments by other parties

Ratio Decidendi

The judge exercised discretion to allow the plaintiffs to amend their pleadings because the amendments clarified and narrowed issues without introducing new issues, abridged time for service and dispensed with service of the amended documents, set specific and shorter time limits for consequential amendments (28 days) and for experts' engagement, and allocated costs against specified parties as set out in the order.

Court Disposition

Applications granted in part with detailed directions: amendments permitted, service dispensed with or abridged, deadlines set for pleadings and expert procedures, and costs allocated as ordered.

Orders

  • Plaintiffs in HCA 2063/2015 to file and serve a draft Re‑Amended Statement of Claim by 4pm on 15 July 2016
  • The plaintiffs' summons dated 24 June 2016 adjourned to 10am on 22 July 2016; costs reserved (HCA 2063/2015)