CHINA RAILWAY INVESTMENTS GROUP (HONG KONG) LTD v. ETERNITY PROFIT INVESTMENTS LTD AND ANOTHER

CHINA RAILWAY INVESTMENTS GROUP (HONG KONG) LTD v. ETERNITY PROFIT INVESTMENTS LTD AND ANOTHER

The Court held the RSC pleads the same November 2006 agreement and substantially the same facts as the SOC so it did not introduce a new cause of action under s 35(3) Limitation Ordinance; the RSC was not an abuse of process nor should the writ be struck out for delay because the delay, though inordinate, caused no demonstrated prejudice and there was no contumelious conduct; accordingly leave to amend was granted and the striking out application dismissed, with specific costs and filing directions.

Citation
[2018] HKCFI 1928
Parties
Plaintiff: Plaintiff; 1st Defendant: 1st Defendant; 2nd Defendant: 2nd Defendant
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
21 August 2018
Case Number
HCA701/2013
Procedural Posture
Civil Contract; Interlocutory Applications to Amend and to Strike Out / Interlocutory Hearing (summons for Leave to Amend; Striking Out Application)
Outcome
RSC Summons allowed; striking out application dismissed.
Legal Topics
Amendment of Statement of Claim, Strike Out for Abuse of Process, Limitation Period (s 35(3) Limitation Ordinance), Delay/want of Prosecution, Leave to Amend, Costs Orders, Issue Estoppel
Source Language
EN
Contract Law Civil Procedure Limitation Law Company/shareholder Disputes Amendment of Statement of Claim Strike Out for Abuse of Process Limitation Period (s 35(3) Limitation Ordinance) Delay/want of Prosecution +3 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 4 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Plaintiff

Plaintiff

1st Defendant

1st Defendant

2nd Defendant

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Contract; Interlocutory Applications to Amend and to Strike Out / Interlocutory Hearing (summons for Leave to Amend; Striking Out Application)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the proposed re-amendments introduce a new cause of action barred by limitation (s 35(3) Limitation Ordinance)
  2. 2 Whether the re-amendments and conduct amount to an abuse of process justifying striking out
  3. 3 Whether inordinate and inexcusable delay/want of prosecution justifies striking out

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held the RSC pleads the same November 2006 agreement and substantially the same facts as the SOC so it did not introduce a new cause of action under s 35(3) Limitation Ordinance; the RSC was not an abuse of process nor should the writ be struck out for delay because the delay, though inordinate, caused no demonstrated prejudice and there was no contumelious conduct; accordingly leave to amend was granted and the striking out application dismissed, with specific costs and filing directions.

Court Disposition

RSC Summons allowed; striking out application dismissed.

Orders

  • RSC Summons allowed and amendments permitted
  • Striking out application dismissed