ANTHONY ERIC RYAN HOTUNG v. HO YUEN KI

ANTHONY ERIC RYAN HOTUNG v. HO YUEN KI

Leave to amend was granted because the proposed amendments (including paragraph 11A alleging deliberate non-disclosure and allegations based on non-compliance with earlier court orders) arose out of the same facts already pleaded, did not cause irremediable prejudice that could not be compensated by costs notwithstanding the defendant's health constraints, and it was appropriate for the merits to be finally ventilated at trial subject to costs and consequential pleadings.

Citation
ANTHONY ERIC RYAN HOTUNG v. HO YUEN KI
Parties
Plaintiff: Anthony Eric Ryan Hotung; 1st Defendant: Ho Yuen Ki; 2nd Defendant (discontinued): Eric Edward Hotung; 3rd Defendant (discontinued): Hotung Estates Limited
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
7 October 2016
Case Number
HCA1216/2006
Procedural Posture
Breach of Trust Action With Interlocutory Application to Amend Pleadings / Application for Leave to Amend Amended Statement of Claim (order 20)
Outcome
Application for leave to amend granted
Legal Topics
Breach of Trust, Amendment of Pleadings, Laches and Acquiescence, Relation Back (o.20 R.5(5)), Exemplary Damages, Limitation Ordinance Defences
Source Language
EN
Trusts and Fiduciary Duties Civil Procedure Limitation Law Equity and Remedies Breach of Trust Amendment of Pleadings Laches and Acquiescence Relation Back (o.20 R.5(5)) +2 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 4 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Anthony Eric Ryan Hotung

Plaintiff

Ho Yuen Ki

1st Defendant

Eric Edward Hotung

2nd Defendant (discontinued)

Hotung Estates Limited

3rd Defendant (discontinued)

Procedural Posture

Breach of Trust Action With Interlocutory Application to Amend Pleadings / Application for Leave to Amend Amended Statement of Claim (order 20)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Nature and scope of trustee duties
  2. 2 Whether trustee breached duties
  3. 3 Liability for mismanagement and sale at undervalue

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to amend was granted because the proposed amendments (including paragraph 11A alleging deliberate non-disclosure and allegations based on non-compliance with earlier court orders) arose out of the same facts already pleaded, did not cause irremediable prejudice that could not be compensated by costs notwithstanding the defendant's health constraints, and it was appropriate for the merits to be finally ventilated at trial subject to costs and consequential pleadings.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to amend granted

Orders

  • Leave to the Plaintiff to amend the Amended Statement of Claim as per the annexed to the summons
  • 1st Defendant liberty to make consequential amendments to the Re-Amended Defence and to file and serve the same within 42 days from service of the Re-Amended Statement of Claim