LAM CHI MING v. LEUNG HOP FOOK AND OTHERS

LAM CHI MING v. LEUNG HOP FOOK AND OTHERS

The court refused the plaintiff leave to file the supplemental affirmation for failure to comply with O.32 r.11A(4) and dismissed the 2nd defendant's application for extension of time because the proposed Defence and Counterclaim disclosed no reasonable defence that would survive striking out under O.18 r.19; consequently judgment was entered against the 2nd defendant and specific costs orders were made.

Citation
LAM CHI MING v. LEUNG HOP FOOK 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
4 September 2012
Case Number
HCA1590/2011
Procedural Posture
Civil Action Pertaining to Enforcement of Tomlin Order and Interlocutory Applications / Interlocutory Application Hearing
Outcome
Plaintiff's summons for leave to adduce further evidence dismissed; 2nd defendant's summons for extension of time to file and serve Defence and Counterclaim dismissed; judgment entered for plaintiff against 2nd defendant; detailed costs orders made.
Legal Topics
Tomlin Order, Specific Performance, Relief From Sanctions, Extension of Time, Striking Out Pleadings, Costs
Source Language
EN
Civil Procedure Contract Property Equity Tomlin Order Specific Performance Relief From Sanctions Extension of Time +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 5 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Plaintiff

Plaintiff

1st Defendant

1st Defendant

2nd Defendant

2nd Defendant

3rd Defendant

3rd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Action Pertaining to Enforcement of Tomlin Order and Interlocutory Applications / Interlocutory Application Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether to admit late supplemental affirmation under O.32 r.11A(4)
  2. 2 Whether to grant extension of time to file and serve Defence and Counterclaim
  3. 3 Whether the proposed Defence discloses a reasonable defence under O.18 r.19

Ratio Decidendi

The court refused the plaintiff leave to file the supplemental affirmation for failure to comply with O.32 r.11A(4) and dismissed the 2nd defendant's application for extension of time because the proposed Defence and Counterclaim disclosed no reasonable defence that would survive striking out under O.18 r.19; consequently judgment was entered against the 2nd defendant and specific costs orders were made.

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's summons for leave to adduce further evidence dismissed; 2nd defendant's summons for extension of time to file and serve Defence and Counterclaim dismissed; judgment entered for plaintiff against 2nd defendant; detailed costs orders made.

Orders

  • Plaintiff's summons dismissed with costs assessed at HKD 1,500 to the 2nd defendant and HKD 1,500 to the 3rd defendant
  • 2nd defendant's summons dismissed with costs assessed at HKD 41,500 to the plaintiff, net costs to the plaintiff HKD 40,000 after set off, and HKD 8,000 to the 3rd defendant