Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Amendment of court orders

Legal area

Court

20 Jan 2012

PROFIT STEP DEVELOPMENT LTD AND ANOTHER v. SUN RISING DEVELOPMENT (AGRICULTURE) LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

PROFIT STEP DEVELOPMENT LTD AND ANOTHER v. SUN RISING DEVELOPMENT (AGRICULTURE) LTD AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV279/2010

The court corrected the earlier order to record that the 2nd Defendant was absent, dismissed the 2nd Defendant's application because the right to proceed had vested in the Official Receiver who did not wish to proceed, made no order as to costs in relation to the 2nd Defendant's application, and required JYJL to serve the amended order on the Official Receiver; the court also recorded that costs of the additional hearing arose from JYJL's mistake and ought properly to be borne by them.
2 Dec 2011

DAVID KONG v. PINE DEVELOPMENT LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

DAVID KONG v. PINE DEVELOPMENT LTD AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCW322/2006

The court declined to amend its prior order of 10 November because the issues raised were matters that had been or could have been addressed earlier, the engagement letter as originally drafted did not unreasonably require further valuations for assets already valuated years earlier, and there was no need to create an amendment that might permit valuers to avoid obtaining necessary valuations; accordingly the court dismissed the respondents' summonses, directed the respondents to sign the engagement letter within three days, and awarded the Petitioner's costs on a party-and-party basis.
5 Dec 2008

PICO INTERNATIONAL (HK) LTD v. PALACE DREAMS LTD

Citation

PICO INTERNATIONAL (HK) LTD v. PALACE DREAMS LTD
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV162/2008

The Court allowed the appeal because the practice master's endorsement on the Kwan affirmation objectively demonstrated his intention that the examination order be in the terms of paragraph 13 (and thus amendable to reflect that intention); given the plaintiff's solicitors' carelessness in preparing the draft order which caused the dispute, it was just to order that the costs of the proceedings here and below be borne by the plaintiff.
10 Feb 2006

NG YEE WAH v. LAM CHUN WAH

Citation

NG YEE WAH v. LAM CHUN WAH
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP4616/2001

The court refused to amend paragraph 5 because there was no clerical error, slip or ambiguity; it declined to give the directional ruling sought on the supplemental bill, leaving the issue to the Taxing Master; the defendant was ordered to pay the plaintiff's costs of the defendant's 3 February 2006 summons, assessed on a gross basis at HK$27,000.
23 Sept 2004

RE GOLD WO INTERNATIONAL HOLDINGS LTD

Citation

RE GOLD WO INTERNATIONAL HOLDINGS LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCW33/2003

The court has jurisdiction under Order 20 of the Rules of the High Court, applied by virtue of the Companies (Winding-up) Rules, and under its inherent jurisdiction to correct accidental slips and misnomers in a winding-up order and the originating petition; the corrections do not change the substance or identity of the company subject to the proceedings and therefore can be made without re-advertisement; costs allocated as appropriate.
23 May 2003

GUANG XIN ENTERPRISES LTD v. KWAN WONG TAN & FONG (a firm)

Citation

GUANG XIN ENTERPRISES LTD v. KWAN WONG TAN & FONG (a firm)
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV263/2002

The Court granted the application to amend the order under the Slip Rule because the drawn order contained a slip and did not reflect the court's clear intention to allow the plaintiff to reformulate and, if possible, revive the Standard Corporation claim.
6 Nov 2001

YUEN FAT WHARF & GODOWN CO. LTD. v. WAY-PROSPERITY CARGO SERVICES CO. LTD. AND OTHERS

Citation

YUEN FAT WHARF & GODOWN CO. LTD. v. WAY-PROSPERITY CARGO SERVICES CO. LTD. AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA3110/2001

Directors of the 1st and 2nd defendants were liable for their companies' contempt, but because there was no evidence of wilful refusal to comply and the directors had taken some steps (albeit inadequate) to understand the order, the court ordered compliance and further particulars and awarded costs on a party-party basis rather than full indemnity; the earlier order was amended as specified.
21 Sept 1999

SPC CREDIT LTD. v. WONG KAM BIU

Citation

SPC CREDIT LTD. v. WONG KAM BIU
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV158/1999

The Court held the judge acted improperly in making costs orders beyond the scope of the interlocutory application; accordingly the orders of 13 November 1998 and 3 February 1999 were to be amended to delete all references to costs except that the costs of the two applications be costs in the cause, because the question of regularity of service remained undecided and matters alleged after 2 May 1995 were irrelevant to the interlocutory determination of setting aside the default judgment.
10 Feb 1998

SKINK LTD AND ANOTHER v. COMTOWELL LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

SKINK LTD AND ANOTHER v. COMTOWELL LTD AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV74/1994

The court held that the powers under Order 20 rule 11 and its inherent jurisdiction extend only to correcting errors in the expression of the court's intention (clerical slips or omissions), not to correcting fundamental mistakes of the court; accordingly the court either lacks jurisdiction to amend the costs orders on the basis advanced or, even if jurisdiction existed, would decline to exercise it and dismisses the application.
UNION V-TEX SHIRT FACTORY LTD v. UNION V-TEX REALTY LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

UNION V-TEX SHIRT FACTORY LTD v. UNION V-TEX REALTY LTD AND OTHERS
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV48/1983

An order that has been signed, sealed and entered is a perfected order even if incorrectly drawn; once perfected the Court had no jurisdiction to re-open the appeal, although the perfected order may be amended to correct errors.