WINLY ADVANCE CO LTD v. CHUNG TIN SUNG AND ANOTHER

WINLY ADVANCE CO LTD v. CHUNG TIN SUNG AND ANOTHER

The court allowed the plaintiff's re-amendments as revised because the substance of the direct claim against the 1st defendant was already pleaded and the amendment did not introduce a new cause of action; however paragraph 17A(i) seeking conveyance of the whole house was disallowed as overbroad. The 1st defendant was granted leave to amend its defence within seven days and may pursue limited discovery if necessary.

Citation
WINLY ADVANCE CO LTD v. CHUNG TIN SUNG AND ANOTHER
Parties
Plaintiff: Plaintiff; 1st Defendant: 1st Defendant; 2nd Defendant: 2nd Defendant
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
16 July 2010
Case Number
HCA2476/2007
Procedural Posture
Specific Performance / Conveyance of Land / Application to Amend Statement of Claim (pre Trial Amendment Hearing); Trial Listed 3 5 August 2010
Outcome
Re-amendment allowed in part with modifications; paragraph 17A(i) disallowed; 1st defendant granted leave to amend defence within seven days; costs allocated as ordered.
Legal Topics
Specific Performance, Subrogation, Amendment of Pleadings, Discovery, Construction Contracts, Land Conveyance
Source Language
EN
Property Law Contract Law Civil Procedure Equitable Remedies Specific Performance Subrogation Amendment of Pleadings Discovery +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 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Plaintiff

Plaintiff

1st Defendant

1st Defendant

2nd Defendant

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Specific Performance / Conveyance of Land / Application to Amend Statement of Claim (pre Trial Amendment Hearing); Trial Listed 3 5 August 2010

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff can amend the statement of claim to plead subrogation/direct claim against the 1st defendant
  2. 2 Whether the proposed re-amendment would create a new cause of action
  3. 3 Whether the re-amendment would necessitate further evidence or discovery by the 1st defendant

Ratio Decidendi

The court allowed the plaintiff's re-amendments as revised because the substance of the direct claim against the 1st defendant was already pleaded and the amendment did not introduce a new cause of action; however paragraph 17A(i) seeking conveyance of the whole house was disallowed as overbroad. The 1st defendant was granted leave to amend its defence within seven days and may pursue limited discovery if necessary.

Court Disposition

Re-amendment allowed in part with modifications; paragraph 17A(i) disallowed; 1st defendant granted leave to amend defence within seven days; costs allocated as ordered.

Orders

  • Re-amendments as revised are allowed
  • Paragraph 17A(i) of the proposed re-amendment and the corresponding relief are deleted