Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Amendment of pleading

Legal area

Court

24 Jun 2022

YING MA v. HANG SENG BANK, LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 1934
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP565/2022

There was cogent evidence that the plaintiff had been defrauded and that monies were paid into the defendants' accounts, the disclosure sought was specific and necessary to trace and recover the stolen monies, no other reasonable avenues existed, and on balance the public and plaintiff's interest in obtaining the information outweighed the banks' confidentiality interests; accordingly a Norwich Pharmacal order should be granted and a clerical amendment allowed.
7 Dec 2020

CREDIT ONE FINANCE LTD v. YEUNG KWOK CHI AND OTHERS

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 3046
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA33/2016

The court refused to vary the costs order because the plaintiff's conduct did not exhibit the special or unusual features required to justify indemnity costs and the without-prejudice offer was not a sanctioned Order 22 offer; therefore enhanced interest could not be awarded on that basis and the earlier costs order nisi was made absolute.
22 Mar 2017

NEW SMART CREDIT SERVICE LTD v. K&L GATES (a firm of solicitors)

Citation

NEW SMART CREDIT SERVICE LTD v. K&L GATES (a firm of solicitors)
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1117/2011

The amendments as initially drafted risked importing extensive issues concerning other clients and transactions, imposing an unreasonable disclosure and defence burden; because the Plaintiffs failed to formulate their amendments properly and caused an adjournment and further hearing, the Plaintiffs must bear the costs of the amendment summonses and the costs of and occasioned by the amendments, including both hearings, and those costs are ordered to be paid to the Defendant with a certificate for counsel.
5 Dec 2014

ZEBRA INDUSTRIES (OROGENESIS NOVA) LTD v. WAH TONG PAPER PRODUCTS GROUP LTD

Citation

ZEBRA INDUSTRIES (OROGENESIS NOVA) LTD v. WAH TONG PAPER PRODUCTS GROUP LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP436/2013

The refusal to permit amendments that would introduce new claims was properly treated as an order determining substantive rights under RHC O 59 r 21 and therefore is appealable as of right (s 14AA(1) inapplicable); separately, there was no prospect of success in any intended appeal against the refusal of discovery, so leave to appeal on discovery is refused and costs in respect of that summons are ordered nisi against the plaintiff.
4 Feb 2013

CHEUNG DAVID YOKE MING v. CHEUNG YAT KEE AND ANOTHER

Citation

CHEUNG DAVID YOKE MING v. CHEUNG YAT KEE AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA391/2011

The judge exercised discretion to allow both the late filing of the supplemental witness statement and the late amendment to add the counterclaim because the supplemental statement was strictly in reply to allegations already made by the plaintiff, fairness required the defendant be allowed to respond, the counterclaim was a natural extension of the pleaded defence and added no new issues, and there was minimal risk of disrupting the trial.
20 Mar 2012

CIRCLE ANGLE LTD v. ORCHARD ENTERPRISE (HONG KONG) LTD

Citation

CIRCLE ANGLE LTD v. ORCHARD ENTERPRISE (HONG KONG) LTD
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ1252/2011

Leave to appeal was granted only in respect of the specific issue whether, given the consideration of a draft cancellation agreement and the withholding of completion steps, OEL was entitled to treat CAL as in breach without notice to complete; leave was refused for the other proposed grounds; costs of the leave application ordered in the cause of the appeal with certificate for counsel.
13 Jul 2010

WAN CHEE LEUNG v. LAM KI MAU AND ANOTHER t/a TOMSON CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING CO

Citation

WAN CHEE LEUNG v. LAM KI MAU AND ANOTHER t/a TOMSON CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING CO
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCPI95/2006

The Defendant is estopped from disputing that the Plaintiff was an employee, that he fell from height, and that he was cutting off steel bars in the course of employment at the time of the accident; the Defendant remains entitled to contest negligence, whether it had knowledge or instructed the Plaintiff regarding the task, and whether the Plaintiff is suffering from Frontal Lobe Syndrome or is malingering; costs of HKD 10,000 were awarded against the Defendant for the summons.
25 Jan 2007

AKAI HOLDINGS LTD (IN COMPULSORY LIQUIDATION) v. DOMINE KO CHEONG WING AND OTHERS

Citation

AKAI HOLDINGS LTD (IN COMPULSORY LIQUIDATION) v. DOMINE KO CHEONG WING AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCL20/2005

The court refused to make no order for costs of the 16 October 2006 hearing because the plaintiff was substantially successful in obtaining leave to amend; the court exercised its discretion to apportion costs: reserved costs of the 6 September 2006 directions hearing to be costs in the application; costs of and occasioned by the amended replacement Statement of Claim to be to the 2nd defendant; plaintiff to have 80% of the costs of the 16 October 2006 hearing; and no order as to costs for the hearing on 12 January 2007.
9 May 2005

FIRST GOOD INTERNATIONAL LTD v. SHUM KIN AND OTHERS

Citation

FIRST GOOD INTERNATIONAL LTD v. SHUM KIN AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA614/2004

Master was correct to strike out the original deficient pleading because material facts supporting agency and the claim for wrongful registration were not properly pleaded; however the court grants leave to amend because the agency, slander of title and conspiracy claims are arguable, arise from substantially the same facts, and the court should exercise discretion under Order 20 r 5(5) to allow amendments despite limitation; leave to file the 2nd affirmation is granted as relevant evidence.
19 Jan 1990

RAMADA PACIFIC LTD v. CHINA TRADE-OMNI DEVELOPMENT CENTRE LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

RAMADA PACIFIC LTD v. CHINA TRADE-OMNI DEVELOPMENT CENTRE LTD AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV142/1989

Appeal allowed: the conspiracy claim did not and could not show the required sole or predominant intent to injure and the alleged set-offs were not viable on the material before the court, therefore summary judgment for the plaintiff was entered for US$2,224,845.33 with interest and costs, and unconditional leave to defend was confined to US$162,000 only; no stay of execution was granted.