FALCON INSURANCE CO (HONG KONG) LTD v. FLAGSHIP UNDERWRITING MANAGEMENT LTD

FALCON INSURANCE CO (HONG KONG) LTD v. FLAGSHIP UNDERWRITING MANAGEMENT LTD

The application to amend the Order dated 25 May 2012 was dismissed because the omission to include a dismissal of the Shun De Claim was not a clerical slip reflecting the court's manifest intention but an omission resulting from the plaintiff not having applied to strike out; the judge did not intend to strike out that counterclaim and therefore the order would not be amended.

Citation
FALCON INSURANCE CO (HONG KONG) LTD v. FLAGSHIP UNDERWRITING MANAGEMENT LTD
Parties
Plaintiff/applicant: Falcon Insurance Company (Hong Kong) Limited; Defendant/respondent: Flagship Underwriting Management Limited
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
11 June 2013
Case Number
HCA312/2010
Procedural Posture
High Court Civil Action (summary Judgment/appeal) / Post Judgment Application to Amend Order Under O.20 R.11 / Slip Rule
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Summary Judgment, Slip Rule, Striking Out, Abuse of Process, Jurisdiction to Dismiss Counterclaim, Costs
Source Language
EN
Civil Procedure Insurance Reinsurance Set Off Appeal Summary Judgment Slip Rule Striking Out +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 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Falcon Insurance Company (Hong Kong) Limited

Plaintiff/applicant

Flagship Underwriting Management Limited

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

High Court Civil Action (summary Judgment/appeal) / Post Judgment Application to Amend Order Under O.20 R.11 / Slip Rule

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court may amend its sealed order under the slip rule to dismiss a counterclaim
  2. 2 Whether the Shun De Claim was properly characterised as unarguable and therefore dismissible
  3. 3 Whether the court has jurisdiction to dismiss a counterclaim on an Order 14 summary judgment application

Ratio Decidendi

The application to amend the Order dated 25 May 2012 was dismissed because the omission to include a dismissal of the Shun De Claim was not a clerical slip reflecting the court's manifest intention but an omission resulting from the plaintiff not having applied to strike out; the judge did not intend to strike out that counterclaim and therefore the order would not be amended.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • Summons dated 7 February 2012 dismissed
  • Order dated 25 May 2012 not amended to dismiss the Shun De Claim