CHAN PO CHU v. B.S.C.INTERIOR CONTRACT AND ENGINEERING CO LTD AND ANOTHER

CHAN PO CHU v. B.S.C.INTERIOR CONTRACT AND ENGINEERING CO LTD AND ANOTHER

Both applications were refused because the plaintiff could not provide a reasonable explanation for the delay in seeking the amendment and filing the supplemental statement, the late amendment would prejudice the defendants (difficulty in locating records and witnesses and unreliable recollections of a 2013 incident), and it would likely disrupt imminent milestone dates and generate further interlocutory proceedings.

Citation
CHAN PO CHU v. B.S.C.INTERIOR CONTRACT AND ENGINEERING CO LTD AND ANOTHER
Parties
Plaintiff: Chan Po Chu; 1st Defendant: B.S.C. Interior Contract And Engineering Company Limited; 2nd Defendant: Bright Link Engineering Limited
Court
District Court
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
16 June 2017
Case Number
DCPI2255/2014
Procedural Posture
Personal Injuries Action / Interlocutory Application (amendment of Statement of Claim and Filing of Supplemental Witness Statement) Decision
Outcome
Applications to amend the statement of claim and to file the draft supplemental witness statement refused
Legal Topics
Amendment of Statement of Claim, Delay and Prejudice, Witness Statements, Discovery, Costs
Source Language
EN
Personal Injury Civil Procedure Pleadings Evidence Amendment of Statement of Claim Delay and Prejudice Witness Statements Discovery +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 3 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Chan Po Chu

Plaintiff

B.S.C. Interior Contract And Engineering Company Limited

1st Defendant

Bright Link Engineering Limited

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Personal Injuries Action / Interlocutory Application (amendment of Statement of Claim and Filing of Supplemental Witness Statement) Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether to allow amendment of statement of claim to add an exposure claim
  2. 2 Whether to permit filing of a supplemental witness statement at late stage
  3. 3 Whether delay and prejudice justify refusal of applications

Ratio Decidendi

Both applications were refused because the plaintiff could not provide a reasonable explanation for the delay in seeking the amendment and filing the supplemental statement, the late amendment would prejudice the defendants (difficulty in locating records and witnesses and unreliable recollections of a 2013 incident), and it would likely disrupt imminent milestone dates and generate further interlocutory proceedings.

Court Disposition

Applications to amend the statement of claim and to file the draft supplemental witness statement refused

Orders

  • Both applications refused
  • Costs of and incidental to these applications to the 1st and 2nd defendants