CORE ASIA LTD AND ANOTHER v. WONG CHEUK YIN AND OTHERS

CORE ASIA LTD AND ANOTHER v. WONG CHEUK YIN AND OTHERS

The summons to amend was dismissed because the proposed amendments were made late, would introduce new lines of factual inquiry and sensitive investigations, were insufficiently particularized (notably failing to plead how a contingent 5% per month equated to the statutory 'effective rate'), were inconsistent with...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2020] HKCFI 2017
Parties
1st Plaintiff: CORE ASIA LIMITED; 2nd Plaintiff: MYER GLOBAL HOLDINGS LIMITED; 1st Defendant: WONG CHEUK YIN; 2nd Defendant: TAM CHING MAN ANGEL; 3rd Defendant: TAM YEE MING; 4th Defendant: TAM KAI MAN
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
13 August 2020
Case Number
HCMP651/2015
Procedural Posture
HCMP 651/2015 (miscellaneous Proceedings) / Interlocutory — Summons for Leave to Amend Defence and Counterclaim (disposed on Paper)
Outcome
Summons dismissed
Legal Topics
Amendment of Pleadings, Unenforceability Under Money Lenders Ordinance, Misrepresentation and Rescission, Extortionate Credit Transactions, Costs
Source Language
en
Money Lenders Ordinance / Financial Regulation Contract Equitable Remedies Civil Procedure (amendment of Pleadings) Amendment of Pleadings Unenforceability Under Money Lenders Ordinance Misrepresentation and Rescission Extortionate Credit Transactions +1 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 3 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

CORE ASIA LIMITED

1st Plaintiff

MYER GLOBAL HOLDINGS LIMITED

2nd Plaintiff

WONG CHEUK YIN

1st Defendant

TAM CHING MAN ANGEL

2nd Defendant

TAM YEE MING

3rd Defendant

TAM KAI MAN

4th Defendant

Procedural Posture

HCMP 651/2015 (miscellaneous Proceedings) / Interlocutory — Summons for Leave to Amend Defence and Counterclaim (disposed on Paper)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether defendants should be permitted to amend their amended defence and counterclaim to plead breaches of the Money Lenders Ordinance
  2. 2 Whether the proposed amendments introduce new factual issues and lack required particulars
  3. 3 Whether the lateness of the application and resulting prejudice to the plaintiffs justify refusal

Ratio Decidendi

The summons to amend was dismissed because the proposed amendments were made late, would introduce new lines of factual inquiry and sensitive investigations, were insufficiently particularized (notably failing to plead how a contingent 5% per month equated to the statutory 'effective rate'), were inconsistent with defendants' pleaded case, and would cause prejudice to the plaintiffs and to the administration of justice if allowed or if trial adjourned.

Court Disposition

Summons dismissed

Orders

  • Summons dismissed
  • Costs of and occasioned by the Summons reserved to be decided by the trial judge upon conclusion of the trial