KEEN LLOYD LTD AND OTHERS v. SAM LEE LIGHTING AND TRANSPORT CO LTD AND OTHERS

KEEN LLOYD LTD AND OTHERS v. SAM LEE LIGHTING AND TRANSPORT CO LTD AND OTHERS

The court refused to abridge the statutory/Rule notice period because the plaintiffs produced no evidential basis and fairness required giving defendants the full one month to investigate and decide on procedural responses; the summons to amend was adjourned sine die (liberty to restore) because it antedated the abridgement application and risked invalidity if pursued prematurely.

Citation
KEEN LLOYD LTD AND OTHERS v. SAM LEE LIGHTING AND TRANSPORT CO LTD AND OTHERS
Parties
1st Plaintiff: KEEN LLOYD LIMITED; 2nd Plaintiff: VICTORY MOTORS CENTRE LIMITED; 3rd Plaintiff: SHIPLAND AUTO LIMITED; 4th Plaintiff: HONEST MOTORS LIMITED; 1st Defendant: SAM LEE LIGHTING AND TRANSPORT COMPANY LIMITED; 2nd Defendant: TO KEE COMPANY STEVEDORE AND TRANSPORTATION; 3rd Defendant: WING HING MARITIME LIMITED S.A.; 4th Defendant: FAT KEE STEVEDORES LIMITED; 5th Defendant: WHARF PROPERTIES LIMITED; 6th Defendant: HARBOUR CITY SECURITY SERVICES LIMITED
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
27 October 1998
Case Number
HCCL166/1993
Procedural Posture
High Court, Court of First Instance, Commercial List (civil) / Interlocutory Applications (summons to Amend Pleadings and Summons to Abridge Time for Notice of Intention to Proceed)
Outcome
Summons dated 17 October 1998 dismissed with costs to defendants; Summons dated 16 October 1998 adjourned sine die with liberty to restore and costs reserved.
Legal Topics
Amendment of Writ and Pleadings, Notice of Intention to Proceed, Abridgement of Time, Want of Prosecution, Costs
Source Language
EN
Civil Procedure Practice and Procedure Commercial Litigation Amendment of Writ and Pleadings Notice of Intention to Proceed Abridgement of Time Want of Prosecution Costs

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 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

KEEN LLOYD LIMITED

1st Plaintiff

VICTORY MOTORS CENTRE LIMITED

2nd Plaintiff

SHIPLAND AUTO LIMITED

3rd Plaintiff

HONEST MOTORS LIMITED

4th Plaintiff

SAM LEE LIGHTING AND TRANSPORT COMPANY LIMITED

1st Defendant

TO KEE COMPANY STEVEDORE AND TRANSPORTATION

2nd Defendant

WING HING MARITIME LIMITED S.A.

3rd Defendant

FAT KEE STEVEDORES LIMITED

4th Defendant

WHARF PROPERTIES LIMITED

5th Defendant

HARBOUR CITY SECURITY SERVICES LIMITED

6th Defendant

Procedural Posture

High Court, Court of First Instance, Commercial List (civil) / Interlocutory Applications (summons to Amend Pleadings and Summons to Abridge Time for Notice of Intention to Proceed)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court should abridge the statutory/Rule period for Notice of Intention to Proceed
  2. 2 Whether a summons to amend issued before abridgement is valid or at risk of being invalid
  3. 3 Whether leave to amend should be considered in the absence of supporting evidence

Ratio Decidendi

The court refused to abridge the statutory/Rule notice period because the plaintiffs produced no evidential basis and fairness required giving defendants the full one month to investigate and decide on procedural responses; the summons to amend was adjourned sine die (liberty to restore) because it antedated the abridgement application and risked invalidity if pursued prematurely.

Court Disposition

Summons dated 17 October 1998 dismissed with costs to defendants; Summons dated 16 October 1998 adjourned sine die with liberty to restore and costs reserved.

Orders

  • Dismissed summons dated 17 October 1998 with costs to the defendants
  • Adjourned summons dated 16 October 1998 sine die, liberty to restore, costs reserved