KONG FUNG RMB REMITTANCE EXCHANGE LTD v. CHAN KAM HOI t/a BAO HANG RMB MONEY EXCHANGE AND OTHERS

KONG FUNG RMB REMITTANCE EXCHANGE LTD v. CHAN KAM HOI t/a BAO HANG RMB MONEY EXCHANGE AND OTHERS

The Master’s amendment and costs orders were set aside because the amended claim failed to show the legal basis and causation for freezing substantially more than HK$1.9m; Kong Fung must serve the no consent letter and provide specified particulars within the deadline or the pleaded paragraphs be struck out and...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2018] HKCFI 7
Parties
Plaintiff (by Original Action): Kong Fung; Defendant (by Original Action): 1st Defendant (by original action); Defendant (by Original Action): 2nd Defendant (by original action); Defendant (by Original Action): 3rd Defendant (by original action); Plaintiff (by Counterclaim): 1st Plaintiff (by counterclaim) (P1); Plaintiff (by Counterclaim): 2nd Plaintiff (by counterclaim) (P2)
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
2 January 2018
Case Number
HCA276/2016
Procedural Posture
Appeal Against Master's Interlocutory Decision / Hearing and Judgment on Appeal in the Court of First Instance (cross‑appeal Also Determined)
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part; Master’s orders set aside; unless order imposed requiring production and particulars; paragraphs of amended statement of claim struck out if non‑compliance; judgment entered for counterclaim plaintiffs; cross‑appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Amendment of Pleadings, Production/discovery of Documents, No Consent Letter Under S25 a OSCO, Causation for Loss, Costs Orders, Strike Out Orders
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Contract Law Criminal Law Banking Law Asset Freezing/money Laundering Amendment of Pleadings Production/discovery of Documents No Consent Letter Under S25 a OSCO +3 more

Source-derived case record

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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kong Fung

Plaintiff (by Original Action)

1st Defendant (by original action)

Defendant (by Original Action)

2nd Defendant (by original action)

Defendant (by Original Action)

3rd Defendant (by original action)

Defendant (by Original Action)

1st Plaintiff (by counterclaim) (P1)

Plaintiff (by Counterclaim)

2nd Plaintiff (by counterclaim) (P2)

Plaintiff (by Counterclaim)

Procedural Posture

Appeal Against Master's Interlocutory Decision / Hearing and Judgment on Appeal in the Court of First Instance (cross‑appeal Also Determined)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Master erred in granting leave to amend to plead HSBC froze the account on its own authority and/or due to a police no consent letter
  2. 2 Whether the no consent letter must be produced under Order 24 rule 10 and whether discovery was necessary under rule 13
  3. 3 Whether further and better particulars (how HSBC suspended the account; identity/gist of officer's words) were required and failure to provide them justified striking out

Ratio Decidendi

The Master’s amendment and costs orders were set aside because the amended claim failed to show the legal basis and causation for freezing substantially more than HK$1.9m; Kong Fung must serve the no consent letter and provide specified particulars within the deadline or the pleaded paragraphs be struck out and judgment entered for the counterclaim plaintiffs for specified sums; cross‑appeal dismissed; costs ordered as set out.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part; Master’s orders set aside; unless order imposed requiring production and particulars; paragraphs of amended statement of claim struck out if non‑compliance; judgment entered for counterclaim plaintiffs; cross‑appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Unless by 4pm on 16 January 2018 Kong Fung serve the no consent letter on the appellants and provide the missing particulars (how HSBC suspended the Account; the document or gist of words used by HSBC if oral)
  • Paragraphs 10, 15 and 16 of the amended statement of claim struck out