TSANG CHUNG WAN v. LI MING AND OTHERS

TSANG CHUNG WAN v. LI MING AND OTHERS

The application to amend the judgment was refused because the judge exercised his discretion not to reopen the matter: counsel's oversight in failing to cite relevant regulations did not amount to the exceptional circumstances required to permit reopening an undrawn oral judgment, therefore the original judgment and costs order nisi stand and the court will not consider the substantive liability of the 3rd Defendant in this application.

Citation
TSANG CHUNG WAN v. LI MING AND OTHERS
Parties
Plaintiff: Tsang Chung Wan; 1st Defendant: Li Ming or Lee Ming; 2nd Defendant: Po On Construction Section; 3rd Defendant: T. S. Wong & Co. Ltd.
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
23 March 1998
Case Number
HCPI1063/1996
Procedural Posture
Personal Injury (civil) / Post Judgment Application to Amend Prior to Drawing Up/perfection
Outcome
Application to amend dismissed; original judgment of 11 February 1998 affirmed (judgment for Plaintiff against 1st Defendant; claims against 2nd and 3rd Defendants dismissed); costs orders nisi upheld and additional hearing costs apportioned.
Legal Topics
Amendment of Judgment, Jurisdiction to Alter Judgment Before Perfection, Breach of Statutory Duty, Interpretation of Regulations, Costs Allocation
Source Language
EN
Civil Procedure Occupiers' Liability Construction Safety Regulations Statutory Duty Costs Amendment of Judgment Jurisdiction to Alter Judgment Before Perfection Breach of Statutory Duty +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 4 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Tsang Chung Wan

Plaintiff

Li Ming or Lee Ming

1st Defendant

Po On Construction Section

2nd Defendant

T. S. Wong & Co. Ltd.

3rd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Personal Injury (civil) / Post Judgment Application to Amend Prior to Drawing Up/perfection

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court may amend a judge's oral judgment before it is drawn up and perfected
  2. 2 Whether counsel's oversight in not citing relevant regulations constitutes an exceptional circumstance justifying reopening the judgment
  3. 3 Whether the 3rd defendant is liable under Regulation 45 of the Construction Sites (Safety) Regulations (issue not decided on merits)

Ratio Decidendi

The application to amend the judgment was refused because the judge exercised his discretion not to reopen the matter: counsel's oversight in failing to cite relevant regulations did not amount to the exceptional circumstances required to permit reopening an undrawn oral judgment, therefore the original judgment and costs order nisi stand and the court will not consider the substantive liability of the 3rd Defendant in this application.

Court Disposition

Application to amend dismissed; original judgment of 11 February 1998 affirmed (judgment for Plaintiff against 1st Defendant; claims against 2nd and 3rd Defendants dismissed); costs orders nisi upheld and additional hearing costs apportioned.

Orders

  • Application by Plaintiff to amend the written judgment dismissed
  • The original judgment dated 11 February 1998 stands: Plaintiff successful against 1st Defendant; 2nd and 3rd Defendants found not liable