BONTEX INTERNATIONAL LTD v. KAISER INVESTMENT (GROUP) LTD AND ANOTHER

BONTEX INTERNATIONAL LTD v. KAISER INVESTMENT (GROUP) LTD AND ANOTHER

The Loan Agreement claim was materially distinct from the subject-matter of the main action (the Tenancy Agreement and Guarantee), did not satisfy the connection required by O.15 r.3(1), and, even if arguable, the court would exercise its discretion under O.15 r.5(2) to refuse the late, prejudicial amendment; accordingly the Amendment Summons was dismissed (save for minor typographical corrections) and the parts of D2's witness statement relating to the Loan Agreement were struck out as irrelevant.

Citation
[2025] HKCFI 2000
Parties
Plaintiff (original Action); 1st Defendant (counterclaim): Bontex International Limited; 1st Defendant (original Action); 1st Plaintiff (counterclaim): Kaiser Investment (Group) Limited; 2nd Defendant (original Action); 2nd Plaintiff (counterclaim): Hiew Shek Kei; 2nd Defendant (counterclaim): Wong Sue Toa Stewart; 3rd Defendant (counterclaim): Chow Ka Fung Matthew; 4th Defendant (counterclaim): Paul P.L. Yip
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
13 May 2025
Case Number
HCA1560/2021
Procedural Posture
Civil Action Concerning Tenancy, Guarantee, Alleged Misrepresentation and Counterclaim; Interlocutory Applications Under Rules of the High Court / Pre Trial Interlocutory Determination of Two Summonses (striking Out Witness Material and Application to Amend Defence and Counterclaim) in Chambers
Outcome
Amendment Summons refused except for allowing correction of typographical references to Hanison; Striking Out Summons granted in full
Legal Topics
Tenancy Agreement, Guarantee, Misrepresentation, Counterclaim Joinder, Amendment of Pleadings, Striking Out Witness Evidence, Money Lenders Ordinance
Source Language
EN
Contract Property Landlord and Tenant Civil Procedure Moneylenders Regulation Tenancy Agreement Guarantee Misrepresentation +4 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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Bontex International Limited

Plaintiff (original Action); 1st Defendant (counterclaim)

Kaiser Investment (Group) Limited

1st Defendant (original Action); 1st Plaintiff (counterclaim)

Hiew Shek Kei

2nd Defendant (original Action); 2nd Plaintiff (counterclaim)

Wong Sue Toa Stewart

2nd Defendant (counterclaim)

Chow Ka Fung Matthew

3rd Defendant (counterclaim)

Paul P.L. Yip

4th Defendant (counterclaim)

Procedural Posture

Civil Action Concerning Tenancy, Guarantee, Alleged Misrepresentation and Counterclaim; Interlocutory Applications Under Rules of the High Court / Pre Trial Interlocutory Determination of Two Summonses (striking Out Witness Material and Application to Amend Defence and Counterclaim) in Chambers

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether proposed amendment to add Loan Agreement claim is properly connected to subject matter of main action for the purposes of O.15 r.3(1) RHC
  2. 2 Whether the Court should exercise its discretion under O.15 r.5(2) to allow late amendment to add a separate claim against an additional party
  3. 3 Whether passages in defendant D2's witness statement relating to the Loan Agreement are relevant and admissible

Ratio Decidendi

The Loan Agreement claim was materially distinct from the subject-matter of the main action (the Tenancy Agreement and Guarantee), did not satisfy the connection required by O.15 r.3(1), and, even if arguable, the court would exercise its discretion under O.15 r.5(2) to refuse the late, prejudicial amendment; accordingly the Amendment Summons was dismissed (save for minor typographical corrections) and the parts of D2's witness statement relating to the Loan Agreement were struck out as irrelevant.

Court Disposition

Amendment Summons refused except for allowing correction of typographical references to Hanison; Striking Out Summons granted in full

Orders

  • Parts of D2's witness statement relating to the Loan Agreement (paragraphs §§17, 18, 19, 31 and 32) are struck out as inadmissible for want of relevance
  • Amendment Summons dismissed save that defendants may file and serve an Amended Defence and Counterclaim solely to correct references to Hanison within 28 days from date of decision