LAM WAI HUNG v. LAM CHUN HUNG AND OTHERS

LAM WAI HUNG v. LAM CHUN HUNG AND OTHERS

Leave to amend at trial was refused because the proposed amendments were late, lacked any affidavit explanation, were unintelligible and deficient in material particulars (including particulars of fraud, dates, places, persons and documentary basis), advanced a claim bound to fail as it improperly sought company assets by reference to shareholder interests without legal basis, and attempted to sue on a contract to which the plaintiff was not a party; accordingly the application was not allowed.

Citation
LAM WAI HUNG v. LAM CHUN HUNG AND OTHERS
Parties
Plaintiff: Plaintiff; 1st Defendant: 1st Defendant; 2nd Defendant: 2nd Defendant; 3rd Defendant: 3rd Defendant
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
22 June 2006
Case Number
HCA2038/2004
Procedural Posture
Civil Dispute Concerning Alleged Fraud, Contract and Proprietary Rights; Application to Amend Statement of Claim / Trial Commenced; Application to Amend Pleadings Heard During Trial (19 20 June 2006)
Outcome
Application for leave to amend the Statement of Claim refused
Legal Topics
Amendment of Pleadings, Particulars Required for Pleading Fraud, Privity of Contract, Separate Legal Personality and Company Assets, Authenticity and Admission of Documents (order 27 R.4), Late Service of Witness Statements, Regulatory Permits and Extent of Rights
Source Language
EN
Civil Procedure Contract Law Company Law Evidence Law Administrative/regulatory Law Fraud Amendment of Pleadings Particulars Required for Pleading Fraud +5 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 6 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Plaintiff

Plaintiff

1st Defendant

1st Defendant

2nd Defendant

2nd Defendant

3rd Defendant

3rd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Dispute Concerning Alleged Fraud, Contract and Proprietary Rights; Application to Amend Statement of Claim / Trial Commenced; Application to Amend Pleadings Heard During Trial (19 20 June 2006)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether leave to amend the Statement of Claim should be granted at trial where amendments are late and introduce a new case
  2. 2 Whether the proposed pleading gives sufficient particulars of fraud as required by the Rules
  3. 3 Whether the plaintiff can assert ownership of alleged rights held by a joint venture company through shareholding

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to amend at trial was refused because the proposed amendments were late, lacked any affidavit explanation, were unintelligible and deficient in material particulars (including particulars of fraud, dates, places, persons and documentary basis), advanced a claim bound to fail as it improperly sought company assets by reference to shareholder interests without legal basis, and attempted to sue on a contract to which the plaintiff was not a party; accordingly the application was not allowed.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to amend the Statement of Claim refused

Orders

  • Application for leave to amend the Statement of Claim refused
  • Adjournment to 10:00 am on the following day was previously granted during the hearing