Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Counterclaim to counterclaim

Legal area

Court

17 Mar 2021

GREAT TOWER DEVELOPMENT LTD v. THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF LUSO APARTMENTS

Citation

[2021] HKDC 338
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ2308/2017

Leave to file and serve the proposed surrejoinder was refused because the proposed counterclaim was unnecessary in substance (would not change the outcome), lacked a pleaded legal basis for the asserted accounting standard requirement, and the application was inordinate late without any satisfactory explanation; accordingly the plaintiff's application was dismissed and costs were awarded to the defendant.
30 Sept 2014

REMEDY ASIA LTD v. YICK SHING CONTRACTORS LTD

Citation

REMEDY ASIA LTD v. YICK SHING CONTRACTORS LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCT4/2012

Leave to appeal refused because the defendant failed to demonstrate a reasonable prospect of success on any proposed ground: the Assignment was held to fall within the access to justice exception (or alternatively did not constitute officious intermeddling), the plaintiff possessed an equitable interest enabling joinder of True Light, and relation-back under s35(1) LO applies to amendments made with leave or consent thereby defeating time-bar challenges; consequent challenges including counterclaim-to-counterclaim were either without merit or academic.
11 Oct 2000

JEANLY (HONG KONG) LTD. v. RALSEY GROUP LTD.

Citation

JEANLY (HONG KONG) LTD. v. RALSEY GROUP LTD.
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA447/1999

The proposed pleading was a shield (set-off) properly pleaded as a counterclaim to the counterclaim in the reply under Order 15 r 2(2); the plaintiff's prior withdrawal did not amount to abuse or automatically preclude a fresh application, so the court exercised its discretion to allow the amendment.
11 Oct 2000

JEANLY (HONG KONG) LTD. v. RALSEY GROUP LTD.

Citation

JEANLY (HONG KONG) LTD. v. RALSEY GROUP LTD.
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA11605/1999

The proposed pleading was properly characterised as a shield (a counterclaim to counterclaim) and therefore the correct vehicle is an amendment to the reply/defence to counterclaim under Order 15 r 2(2); the prior withdrawal did not constitute abuse sufficient to deny leave, so amendment was allowed in the exercise of the court's discretion.
2 May 1983

WELWIN KNITTING GARMENT FACTORY LTD v. WELNADE FABRIC MANUFACTURING LTD

Citation

WELWIN KNITTING GARMENT FACTORY LTD v. WELNADE FABRIC MANUFACTURING LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA3794/1982

The counterclaim to counterclaim was struck out as superfluous because it added no independent cause of action, functioned only as a defensive set-off included ex abundanti cautela, and its presence would force the defendant to incur unnecessary costs; the proper plea for an unpaid seller who accepted repudiation is to claim the difference between contract price and market price or value, not the full contract price.
31 Dec 1973

IRMCO INTERNATIONAL LTD v. TOM FLYNN

Citation

IRMCO INTERNATIONAL LTD v. TOM FLYNN
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ2695/1973

Leave was granted to the Plaintiff to file a Defence to the Counterclaim out of time (within 7 days) because no sufficient prejudice was shown and it would facilitate final adjudication; the Plaintiff's proposed 'Counterclaim to Counterclaim' was refused because it constituted a substantive claim ('sword') rather than a permissible protective 'shield' and therefore could not be raised as a counterclaim to the counterclaim in the circumstances.

Hong Kong Case Law

GREAT TOWER DEVELOPMENT LTD v. THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF LUSO APARTMENTS

REMEDY ASIA LTD v. YICK SHING CONTRACTORS LTD

JEANLY (HONG KONG) LTD. v. RALSEY GROUP LTD.

JEANLY (HONG KONG) LTD. v. RALSEY GROUP LTD.

WELWIN KNITTING GARMENT FACTORY LTD v. WELNADE FABRIC MANUFACTURING LTD

IRMCO INTERNATIONAL LTD v. TOM FLYNN