TSUI KOON WAH v. LAM KING YUEN AND OTHERS

TSUI KOON WAH v. LAM KING YUEN AND OTHERS

The court held that although the affirmations were irregular for not giving residential addresses as required by Order 41 rule 1(4) and s7(4) of the Ordinance, the irregularity did not justify striking them out because the deponents' identities were clear; accordingly leave was granted under Order 41 rule 4 to use the supplemental affirmations in evidence, the affirmations and amended defence were not struck out, the appeal was dismissed and costs were apportioned between the parties.

Citation
TSUI KOON WAH v. LAM KING YUEN AND OTHERS
Parties
Plaintiff: TSUI KOON WAH; 1st Defendant: LAM KING YUEN; 2nd Defendant: KWOK YUEN HAN; 3rd Defendant: TAM WAI HUNG; 4th Defendant: NG LAW SEE LING
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
27 May 2004
Case Number
HCA890/2003
Procedural Posture
Civil Defamation / Interlocutory Appeal From Master's Order on Affidavits/interrogatories
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; leave granted to use supplemental affirmations notwithstanding irregularity; affirmations filed 5 February 2004, supplemental affirmations filed 25 February 2004 and amended defence not struck out.
Legal Topics
Affidavit Formalities, Order 41 Rule 1(4), Order 41 Rule 4, Oaths and Declarations Ordinance S7(4), Striking Out, Costs
Source Language
EN
Civil Employment Defamation Civil Procedure Affidavit Formalities Order 41 Rule 1(4) Order 41 Rule 4 Oaths and Declarations Ordinance S7(4) +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 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

TSUI KOON WAH

Plaintiff

LAM KING YUEN

1st Defendant

KWOK YUEN HAN

2nd Defendant

TAM WAI HUNG

3rd Defendant

NG LAW SEE LING

4th Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Defamation / Interlocutory Appeal From Master's Order on Affidavits/interrogatories

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether supplemental affirmations complied with Oaths and Declarations Ordinance s7(4) and Order 41 rule 1(4)
  2. 2 Whether occupational/work addresses satisfy the requirement to state place of residence
  3. 3 Whether non‑compliance warrants striking out the affirmations and amended defence

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that although the affirmations were irregular for not giving residential addresses as required by Order 41 rule 1(4) and s7(4) of the Ordinance, the irregularity did not justify striking them out because the deponents' identities were clear; accordingly leave was granted under Order 41 rule 4 to use the supplemental affirmations in evidence, the affirmations and amended defence were not struck out, the appeal was dismissed and costs were apportioned between the parties.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; leave granted to use supplemental affirmations notwithstanding irregularity; affirmations filed 5 February 2004, supplemental affirmations filed 25 February 2004 and amended defence not struck out.

Orders

  • Leave granted for the supplemental affirmations to be used in evidence notwithstanding irregularity
  • Appeal dismissed subject to leave granted above