PACIFIC HARBOR ADVISORS PTE LTD AND ANOTHER v. WINSON FEDERAL LTD AND OTHERS

PACIFIC HARBOR ADVISORS PTE LTD AND ANOTHER v. WINSON FEDERAL LTD AND OTHERS

The court held it had jurisdiction under the slip rule to correct an accidental omission in the final paragraph of the sealed order because the Transcript and Judgment demonstrated the court's manifest intention was to deal only with monetary claims and to grant leave to defend only to the 1st and 2nd defendants; the corrigendum was therefore a permissible correction rather than a substantive variation and was granted; there would be no order as to costs of and incidental to the plaintiffs' summons.

Citation
PACIFIC HARBOR ADVISORS PTE LTD AND ANOTHER v. WINSON FEDERAL LTD AND OTHERS
Parties
1st Plaintiff: PACIFIC HARBOR ADVISORS PTE LTD; 2nd Plaintiff: PACIFIC HARBOUR SPECIAL HOLDINGS LIMITED; 1st Defendant: WINSON FEDERAL LIMITED; 2nd Defendant: FREDERICK KAN KA CHONG (executor of the Estate of Cho Yuk Kei Carlos); 3rd Defendant: CHO WOON MING VINCENT; 4th Defendant: INTERNATIONAL HOTELIERS & ASSOCIATES LIMITED; 5th Defendant: UP SPEED INVESTMENTS LIMITED; 6th Defendant: RANMARK INVESTMENTS LIMITED; 7th Defendant: FURAMA (SHENYANG) COMPANY LIMITED
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
31 July 2015
Case Number
HCA1257/2013
Procedural Posture
Civil Summary Judgment and Post Judgment Correction Application / Application for Corrigendum/slip Rule Correction of Sealed Order After Summary Judgment
Outcome
Corrigendum granted to correct sealed order: leave to defend limited to 1st and 2nd defendants in respect of the remaining monetary claims; no order as to costs of and incidental to the plaintiffs' summons
Legal Topics
Summary Judgment, Slip Rule / Corrigendum, Leave to Defend, Specific Performance, Interest Awards, Costs
Source Language
EN
Civil Procedure Contract Equity Summary Judgment Slip Rule / Corrigendum Leave to Defend Specific Performance Interest Awards +1 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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

PACIFIC HARBOR ADVISORS PTE LTD

1st Plaintiff

PACIFIC HARBOUR SPECIAL HOLDINGS LIMITED

2nd Plaintiff

WINSON FEDERAL LIMITED

1st Defendant

FREDERICK KAN KA CHONG (executor of the Estate of Cho Yuk Kei Carlos)

2nd Defendant

CHO WOON MING VINCENT

3rd Defendant

INTERNATIONAL HOTELIERS & ASSOCIATES LIMITED

4th Defendant

UP SPEED INVESTMENTS LIMITED

5th Defendant

RANMARK INVESTMENTS LIMITED

6th Defendant

FURAMA (SHENYANG) COMPANY LIMITED

7th Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Summary Judgment and Post Judgment Correction Application / Application for Corrigendum/slip Rule Correction of Sealed Order After Summary Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court had jurisdiction to correct a sealed order by slip rule after judgment was drawn up
  2. 2 Whether the omission in the order was an accidental clerical slip confined to specifying which defendants and that the word 'monetary' was omitted
  3. 3 Whether correcting the order would constitute a substantive variation or a 'radical departure' prohibited by functus officio doctrine and pending appeal

Ratio Decidendi

The court held it had jurisdiction under the slip rule to correct an accidental omission in the final paragraph of the sealed order because the Transcript and Judgment demonstrated the court's manifest intention was to deal only with monetary claims and to grant leave to defend only to the 1st and 2nd defendants; the corrigendum was therefore a permissible correction rather than a substantive variation and was granted; there would be no order as to costs of and incidental to the plaintiffs' summons.

Court Disposition

Corrigendum granted to correct sealed order: leave to defend limited to 1st and 2nd defendants in respect of the remaining monetary claims; no order as to costs of and incidental to the plaintiffs' summons

Orders

  • IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the 1st and 2nd Defendants be given leave to defend on the rest of the Ps’ monetary claims against them in the ASOC.
  • No order as to costs of and incidental to the Plaintiffs' Summons (dated 26 May 2015).