TANG KAM WAH AND OTHERS v. TANG MING YAT AND ANOTHER

TANG KAM WAH AND OTHERS v. TANG MING YAT AND ANOTHER

The court refused permission to re-amend because the proposed amendment was a late introduction of a new customary rule that would cause real and potentially irremediable prejudice to the Plaintiffs by necessitating fresh evidence and altering trial scope; the court also refused to adjourn the trial for an interlocutory appeal because the circumstances were not sufficiently exceptional, the plaintiffs would suffer prejudice from delay, and interlocutory appeal prospects did not justify interrupting the trial.

Citation
TANG KAM WAH AND OTHERS v. TANG MING YAT AND ANOTHER
Parties
1st Plaintiffs (managers of Tang Mung Lau Tso): Tang Kam Wah; Tang Ching Fan; Tang Ka Hi; Tang Ming Cheung (or Tseung); Tang Luen Hing; Tang Tai Tong; 2nd Plaintiffs (managers of Tang Tsz Hau Tso): Tang Siu Cheung; Tang Ka Hi; Tang Soon Ching (or Chung); Tang Yuet Nam; Tang Shek Kiu; 1st Defendant: Tang Ming Yat; 2nd Defendant: Hung Yat Car Park Company Limited
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
19 September 2000
Case Number
HCA10141/1998
Procedural Posture
Civil Action for Trespass to Land Concerning Validity of Tenancy Agreement / Trial (fourth Day) — Applications to Re Amend Pleading and to Adjourn Pending Appeal Heard and Refused
Outcome
Application to re-amend Amended Defence and Counterclaim refused; application to adjourn trial pending appeal refused
Legal Topics
Tenancy Validity, Compliance With S.15 New Territories Ordinance, Amendment of Pleadings, Adjournment Pending Interlocutory Appeal, Customary Rules of Tso Management
Source Language
EN
Property Land Law Civil Procedure Customary Law Administrative Law Tenancy Validity Compliance With S.15 New Territories Ordinance Amendment of Pleadings +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 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Tang Kam Wah; Tang Ching Fan; Tang Ka Hi; Tang Ming Cheung (or Tseung); Tang Luen Hing; Tang Tai Tong

1st Plaintiffs (managers of Tang Mung Lau Tso)

Tang Siu Cheung; Tang Ka Hi; Tang Soon Ching (or Chung); Tang Yuet Nam; Tang Shek Kiu

2nd Plaintiffs (managers of Tang Tsz Hau Tso)

Tang Ming Yat

1st Defendant

Hung Yat Car Park Company Limited

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Action for Trespass to Land Concerning Validity of Tenancy Agreement / Trial (fourth Day) — Applications to Re Amend Pleading and to Adjourn Pending Appeal Heard and Refused

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the alleged tenancy is binding given compliance with s.15 New Territories Ordinance and requisite consents
  2. 2 Whether the defendants should be permitted to re-amend the Amended Defence to plead a new customary rule late in the trial
  3. 3 Whether the trial should be adjourned to permit an interlocutory appeal against refusal to amend

Ratio Decidendi

The court refused permission to re-amend because the proposed amendment was a late introduction of a new customary rule that would cause real and potentially irremediable prejudice to the Plaintiffs by necessitating fresh evidence and altering trial scope; the court also refused to adjourn the trial for an interlocutory appeal because the circumstances were not sufficiently exceptional, the plaintiffs would suffer prejudice from delay, and interlocutory appeal prospects did not justify interrupting the trial.

Court Disposition

Application to re-amend Amended Defence and Counterclaim refused; application to adjourn trial pending appeal refused

Orders

  • Leave to re-amend the Amended Defence and Counterclaim refused
  • Application to adjourn the trial to enable interlocutory appeal against refusal to amend refused