UPPLAN CO LTD v. LI HO MING AND ANOTHER

UPPLAN CO LTD v. LI HO MING AND ANOTHER

Costs of the 8 May 2019 summons and a certificate for two counsel were awarded to the defendants because the challenge to Upplan's authority was raised at the outset, Upplan remedied the deficiency only after the summons, there was no adequate reason to find prejudice, and the contested amendments (estoppel and business cessation pleas) were permissible as legal issues or simple factual matters addressable by supplemental evidence.

Citation
[2019] HKCFI 2273
Parties
Plaintiff (original Action); 1st Defendant (counterclaim): Upplan Company Limited (快盈有限公司); 1st Defendant (original Action); Plaintiff (counterclaim): Li Ho Ming (李皓明); 2nd Defendant (original Action): Rainbow Point Limited; 2nd Defendant (counterclaim): Li Ho Ping; 3rd Defendant (counterclaim): Wong Oi Ching; 4th Defendant (counterclaim): Li Siu Lung
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
20 August 2019
Case Number
HCA1915/2009
Procedural Posture
Civil Action With Counterclaim / Interlocutory (chambers Hearing)
Outcome
Summons dated 8 May 2019: costs awarded to the Defendants (original action) and a certificate for two counsel granted; Defendants' application to amend the Defence and Counterclaim allowed in respect of para 8.22A (estoppel) and paras 9.15A and 9.15B (business cessation). Parties to be heard on consequential...
Legal Topics
Costs, Amendment of Defence and Counterclaim, Authority to Sue, Estoppel, Case Management
Source Language
EN
Civil Procedure Costs Pleadings Estoppel Amendment of Defence and Counterclaim Authority to Sue Case Management

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

Upplan Company Limited (快盈有限公司)

Plaintiff (original Action); 1st Defendant (counterclaim)

Li Ho Ming (李皓明)

1st Defendant (original Action); Plaintiff (counterclaim)

Rainbow Point Limited

2nd Defendant (original Action)

Li Ho Ping

2nd Defendant (counterclaim)

Wong Oi Ching

3rd Defendant (counterclaim)

Li Siu Lung

4th Defendant (counterclaim)

Procedural Posture

Civil Action With Counterclaim / Interlocutory (chambers Hearing)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether defendants are entitled to costs for the summons challenging the plaintiff's authority to bring proceedings
  2. 2 Whether the defendants' proposed amendments to the Defence and Counterclaim (estoppel and business cessation pleas) should be allowed at a late stage
  3. 3 Whether the plaintiff was precluded by election or delay from challenging the authority to sue

Ratio Decidendi

Costs of the 8 May 2019 summons and a certificate for two counsel were awarded to the defendants because the challenge to Upplan's authority was raised at the outset, Upplan remedied the deficiency only after the summons, there was no adequate reason to find prejudice, and the contested amendments (estoppel and business cessation pleas) were permissible as legal issues or simple factual matters addressable by supplemental evidence.

Court Disposition

Summons dated 8 May 2019: costs awarded to the Defendants (original action) and a certificate for two counsel granted; Defendants' application to amend the Defence and Counterclaim allowed in respect of para 8.22A (estoppel) and paras 9.15A and 9.15B (business cessation). Parties to be heard on consequential...

Orders

  • Costs of the Summons filed 8 May 2019 to be awarded to the Defendants (in the original action)
  • Certificate for two counsel granted in favour of the Defendants