MESSRS BAKER & MCKENZIE v. HENNEX INDUSTRIES LTD AND OTHERS

MESSRS BAKER & MCKENZIE v. HENNEX INDUSTRIES LTD AND OTHERS

The court allowed correction of a purely arithmetical/clerical error under Order 20 r11 (amending the division of the disputed sum) because it did not disturb the substance of the judgment; the court refused to amend the costs order because that would amount to re‑exercising the court's discretion on costs and was therefore outside the ambit of the slip rule.

Citation
MESSRS BAKER & MCKENZIE v. HENNEX INDUSTRIES LTD AND OTHERS
Parties
Applicant: Messrs Baker & McKenzie; 1st Claimant: Hennex Industries Limited; 2nd Claimant: Make Sales Enterprise Limited; 3rd Claimant: Sheen Wealth Industrial Limited; 4th Claimant: Kingdom Power Development Limited
Court
District Court
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
31 October 2014
Case Number
DCMP809/2014
Procedural Posture
Interpleader / Miscellaneous Proceedings / Summons to Amend Judgment Under Order 20 Rule 11 (clerical Mistakes)
Outcome
Summons partly granted and partly dismissed
Legal Topics
Interpleader, Slip Rule / Clerical Amendment (order 20 R11), Discretion as to Costs, Arithmetical Correction of Judgment
Source Language
EN
Civil Procedure Equity Costs Interpleader Slip Rule / Clerical Amendment (order 20 R11) Discretion as to Costs Arithmetical Correction of Judgment

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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Messrs Baker & McKenzie

Applicant

Hennex Industries Limited

1st Claimant

Make Sales Enterprise Limited

2nd Claimant

Sheen Wealth Industrial Limited

3rd Claimant

Kingdom Power Development Limited

4th Claimant

Procedural Posture

Interpleader / Miscellaneous Proceedings / Summons to Amend Judgment Under Order 20 Rule 11 (clerical Mistakes)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an arithmetical/clerical error in the judgment may be corrected under Order 20 rule 11
  2. 2 Whether the costs order could be amended under the slip rule or whether that would amount to re‑exercising the court's discretion on costs
  3. 3 Whether amendment of costs would prejudice parties or alter the body of the judgment

Ratio Decidendi

The court allowed correction of a purely arithmetical/clerical error under Order 20 r11 (amending the division of the disputed sum) because it did not disturb the substance of the judgment; the court refused to amend the costs order because that would amount to re‑exercising the court's discretion on costs and was therefore outside the ambit of the slip rule.

Court Disposition

Summons partly granted and partly dismissed

Orders

  • Paragraphs 32(i) and 32(ii) of the Judgment amended: part of the disputed sum of HK$160500 paid into court be released to the 1st and 2nd claimants; the remaining disputed sum of HK$33000 paid into court be released to the 3rd and 4th claimants forthwith.
  • The 2nd part of the summons seeking amendment of the costs orders (paragraphs 32(iii) and 32(iv)) is dismissed.