DRAGON WORKSHOP LTD AND ANOTHER v. TREASURE EXPRESS INDUSTRIAL LTD AND ANOTHER

DRAGON WORKSHOP LTD AND ANOTHER v. TREASURE EXPRESS INDUSTRIAL LTD AND ANOTHER

The amendment was permitted because the implied term sought falls within a well-established category (a party not to frustrate contractual performance), the pleaded background and specific particulars already in the RADC provided a sufficient factual foundation without further particulars, and the amendment would enable the real controversy to be determined; the amendment did not amount to an allegation of dishonesty requiring additional particulars.

Citation
[2022] HKDC 251
Parties
1st Plaintiff: Dragon Workshop Limited; 2nd Plaintiff: Huge Target Limited; 1st Defendant: Treasure Express Industrial Limited; 2nd Defendant: Lai Yu San
Court
District Court
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
25 March 2022
Case Number
DCCJ4006/2018
Procedural Posture
Landlord and Tenant Dispute / Application to Amend Pleadings (paper Disposal) Pre Trial
Outcome
Leave to amend granted; Re-Re-Amended Defence and Counterclaim to be filed; plaintiffs given leave to file a Re-amended Reply and Defence to Counterclaim within 14 days after re-opening of the Registry; costs to plaintiffs but defendants to have costs of written submissions; costs order nisi to be made absolute...
Legal Topics
Implied Terms, Pleadings Amendment, Breach of Lease, Assignment/re Transfer of Licences, Costs
Source Language
EN
Contract Property Landlord and Tenant Civil Procedure Regulatory (food Licensing) Implied Terms Pleadings Amendment Breach of Lease +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 3 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dragon Workshop Limited

1st Plaintiff

Huge Target Limited

2nd Plaintiff

Treasure Express Industrial Limited

1st Defendant

Lai Yu San

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Landlord and Tenant Dispute / Application to Amend Pleadings (paper Disposal) Pre Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether terms should be implied into the leases requiring the landlord not to frustrate or hinder licence re-transfer and to cooperate in re-assignment
  2. 2 Whether particulars were required to support the proposed implied terms or any allegation of dishonesty
  3. 3 Whether the defendants’ proposed amendments should be allowed in the court’s discretion

Ratio Decidendi

The amendment was permitted because the implied term sought falls within a well-established category (a party not to frustrate contractual performance), the pleaded background and specific particulars already in the RADC provided a sufficient factual foundation without further particulars, and the amendment would enable the real controversy to be determined; the amendment did not amount to an allegation of dishonesty requiring additional particulars.

Court Disposition

Leave to amend granted; Re-Re-Amended Defence and Counterclaim to be filed; plaintiffs given leave to file a Re-amended Reply and Defence to Counterclaim within 14 days after re-opening of the Registry; costs to plaintiffs but defendants to have costs of written submissions; costs order nisi to be made absolute...

Orders

  • Leave granted to the defendants to amend the Re-Amended Defence and Counterclaim per the revised draft (D's Summons paragraphs 1 and 2).
  • Leave for the defendants to file the Re-Re-Amended Defence and Counterclaim with the Registry.