WDA ARCHITECTS LTD v. MHS PLANNERS, ARCHITECTS & ENGINEERS AND ANOTHER

WDA ARCHITECTS LTD v. MHS PLANNERS, ARCHITECTS & ENGINEERS AND ANOTHER

Leave to re-amend was refused because the proposed new causes of action (breach of warranty of authority, exclusive joint venture/partnership, agreement to work as joint venture partners, Authorised Person agreement, estoppel) were founded on new factual averments that did not appear in, or were not substantially the same as, the facts pleaded in the amended statement of claim; therefore they are time‑barred and not within the Order 20 rule 5 exception.

Citation
WDA ARCHITECTS LTD v. MHS PLANNERS, ARCHITECTS & ENGINEERS AND ANOTHER
Parties
Plaintiff: WDA ARCHITECTS LIMITED; 1st Defendant: MHS PLANNERS, ARCHITECTS & ENGINEERS; 2nd Defendant: MHS PLANNERS, ARCHITECTS & ENGINEERS HONG KONG LIMITED
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
11 March 2014
Case Number
HCCL43/2007
Procedural Posture
Commercial Action (application for Leave to Re Amend Statement of Claim) / Chambers Hearing — Application to Re Amend After Expiry of Limitation Period; Reasons for Decision
Outcome
Plaintiff's application to re-amend was dismissed in respect of substantial parts; leave to re-amend to introduce the new, time‑barred causes of action was refused.
Legal Topics
Leave to Amend, Order 20 Rule 5, Relation Back, New Cause of Action, Breach of Warranty of Authority, Breach of Confidence, Breach of Fiduciary Duty, Joint Venture, Authorised Person Agreement, Estoppel, Account of Profits
Source Language
EN
Limitation Law Contract Law Equity Agency Law Civil Procedure Confidentiality Fiduciary Duties Partnership/joint Venture Law +11 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 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

WDA ARCHITECTS LIMITED

Plaintiff

MHS PLANNERS, ARCHITECTS & ENGINEERS

1st Defendant

MHS PLANNERS, ARCHITECTS & ENGINEERS HONG KONG LIMITED

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Action (application for Leave to Re Amend Statement of Claim) / Chambers Hearing — Application to Re Amend After Expiry of Limitation Period; Reasons for Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether proposed re-amendments would introduce new time‑barred causes of action
  2. 2 Whether the new causes of action arise out of the same facts or substantially the same facts as pleaded (Order 20 rule 5 exception)
  3. 3 Whether claims for breach of warranty of authority, joint venture/partnership, Authorised Person agreement or estoppel are within the original pleaded facts

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to re-amend was refused because the proposed new causes of action (breach of warranty of authority, exclusive joint venture/partnership, agreement to work as joint venture partners, Authorised Person agreement, estoppel) were founded on new factual averments that did not appear in, or were not substantially the same as, the facts pleaded in the amended statement of claim; therefore they are time‑barred and not within the Order 20 rule 5 exception.

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's application to re-amend was dismissed in respect of substantial parts; leave to re-amend to introduce the new, time‑barred causes of action was refused.

Orders

  • Dismissed substantial part of plaintiff's application for leave to re-amend the statement of claim
  • Refused re-amendments alleging the 2nd defendant acted as agent of the 1st defendant and breach of warranty of authority (proposed paras 1.3, 20, 22A)