WEI WEI v. CHI CHIH TONG AND ANOTHER

WEI WEI v. CHI CHIH TONG AND ANOTHER

The application to add Tsang was dismissed because the plaintiff had knowledge by April 2016 (imputed knowledge from her solicitors), had no satisfactory explanation for failing to apply before limitation expired, and could not now advance inconsistent claims after obtaining default judgment against the 2nd defendant; the abrogation request was refused for lack of statutory basis and because default judgment already operates to bar defence unless set aside; the third‑party disclosure request failed for procedural non‑compliance with Order 24 r7A and lack of demonstrated relevance or necessity.

Citation
[2018] HKDC 57
Parties
Plaintiff: Wei Wei; 1st Defendant: Chi Chih Tong; 2nd Defendant: Wong Yin Mui; Intended 3rd Defendant: Tsang Chi Ho
Court
District Court
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
15 January 2018
Case Number
DCPI990/2015
Procedural Posture
Personal Injuries Action / Hearing on First Summons in Chambers
Outcome
First Summons dismissed in all material respects
Legal Topics
Joinder of Defendant, Limitation Period (date of Knowledge), Alternative Pleading/inconsistent Claims, Default Judgment and Setting Aside, Third Party Disclosure (cctv), Statutory Interpretation of Keeper
Source Language
EN
Personal Injury Limitation Law Civil Procedure Animal Regulation (dogs and Cats/rabies) Joinder of Defendant Limitation Period (date of Knowledge) Alternative Pleading/inconsistent Claims Default Judgment and Setting Aside +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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Wei Wei

Plaintiff

Chi Chih Tong

1st Defendant

Wong Yin Mui

2nd Defendant

Tsang Chi Ho

Intended 3rd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Personal Injuries Action / Hearing on First Summons in Chambers

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the intended 3rd defendant Tsang can be added despite limitation
  2. 2 Whether plaintiff may run inconsistent claims against multiple defendants or must plead in the alternative
  3. 3 Whether 2nd defendant's right to defend can be abrogated for failing to file statements for trial

Ratio Decidendi

The application to add Tsang was dismissed because the plaintiff had knowledge by April 2016 (imputed knowledge from her solicitors), had no satisfactory explanation for failing to apply before limitation expired, and could not now advance inconsistent claims after obtaining default judgment against the 2nd defendant; the abrogation request was refused for lack of statutory basis and because default judgment already operates to bar defence unless set aside; the third‑party disclosure request failed for procedural non‑compliance with Order 24 r7A and lack of demonstrated relevance or necessity.

Court Disposition

First Summons dismissed in all material respects

Orders

  • Application to add Tsang Chi Ho as 3rd defendant dismissed
  • Application to abrogate the 2nd defendant's right to defend dismissed