Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Eshelby rule

Legal area

Court

18 Dec 2025

DUBAI (INTERNATIONAL) DJIBOUTI FZE v. CHINA MERCHANTS PORT HOLDINGS COMPANY LTD

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 6332
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA504/2025

The 2025 Statement of Claim was struck out because it amounted to an abuse of process: the pleaded claims are the same cause of action or substantially overlap with the 2018 Action, the New Pleas amount to further particulars rather than a distinct cause of action, DID offered no good reason to maintain a separate action and had breached the Aldi Stores guideline; accordingly the court exercised its discretionary strike-out power and dismissed the 2025 Action.
17 Jun 2022

TASTY CATERING GROUP LTD AND ANOTHER v. CHENG HUNG KIT AND OTHERS

Citation

[2022] HKCA 853
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV573/2020

Leave to appeal was refused because the questions posed were not questions of great general or public importance and were not reasonably arguable: the Eshelby principle remains a relevant consideration for post‑writ amendments; the proposed amendments against D13 did not disclose an actionable claim (no pleaded relief; duress not per se actionable and no pleaded loss); proposed amendments against D1/D2 raised post‑writ causes of action that do not arise out of the same or substantially the same facts and were time‑barred; the exceptional 'or otherwise' limb was not engaged.
23 Dec 2021

TAM BING CHOI AND OTHERS v. HUI SIM KIU AND OTHERS

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 3751
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1091/2018

Amendment was allowed generally but not to add Section E or its reliefs because Section E raised post‑writ matters with little or no connection to the original claim and was outside the Indorsement of Claim; separately the plaintiffs' remaining declaratory claims were struck out as academic and devoid of practical utility because intervening events (the New Resolution and subsequent endorsement of the minutes) had supervened, leaving no real interest or proper practical purpose for the court to grant the declaratory reliefs.
14 May 2020

QIANHAI XINHUAKANG FINANCIAL HOLDINGS (SHENZHEN) LTD v. CHEN JIARONG AND OTHERS

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 823
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA377/2018

The court exercised its wide discretion under O 18 r 9/O 20 r 5 to allow the re‑amendments because they are defensive, closely connected to the original claims, not introducing incurably new stand‑alone causes of action, and are not shown to be bound to fail on the material before the court; consequently the parallel 2019 action was stayed and costs directions made.
14 May 2020

QIANHAI XINHUAKANG FINANCIAL HOLDINGS (SHENZHEN) LTD v. CHEN JIARONG AND OTHERS

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 823
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1508/2019

The court applied a modern, flexible approach under O 18 r 9 / O 20 r 5 and held that the proposed re-amendments were defensive, closely connected to the original claims and not bound to fail on their face; accordingly the Eshelby rule did not bar the amendments and leave to amend was granted; the 2019 action was stayed as its claims were included in the amended 2018 action.
21 Feb 2018

TAO, SOH NGUN v. HSBC INTERNATIONAL TRUSTEE LTD

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 380
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA3246/2016

The Amendment Application was dismissed because the proposed post-writ letters and associated allegations each constituted separate causes of action that arose after the writ and thus could not be introduced into the pleading in the face of opposition, applying the Eshelby rule as explained in Wing Siu; the Split Trial Application was allowed because there was a clear demarcation between liability and quantum, significant expert evidence on quantum, risk of trial overrun, and fairness given the plaintiff's age made it just and convenient to try liability first.
13 Jan 2017

RE HIN-PRO INTERNATIONAL LOGISTICS LTD

Citation

RE HIN-PRO INTERNATIONAL LOGISTICS LTD
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV54/2016

The application for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal was dismissed because none of the five questions raised met the established test for leave: they were not questions of great general or public importance determinative of the appeal, the Eshelby/relation-back issue did not present a GPI question in this insolvency context, Re Richbell presented no basis for divergence, and exceptional leave under s22(2)(b) was not made out; costs were awarded to the respondent and assessed on a gross sum basis at HK$106,747.
30 Sept 2016

RE HIN-PRO INTERNATIONAL LOGISTICS LTD

Citation

RE HIN-PRO INTERNATIONAL LOGISTICS LTD
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV54/2016

The Court of Appeal held there is jurisdiction to amend a creditor's winding-up petition to include debts arising after presentation; the Eshelby rule does not apply to creditor's petitions because of the public interest in winding-up, the facility for other creditors to appear, substitution rules and statutory recognition of future creditors; the court should exercise its discretion to allow amendments unless it is readily apparent they are bound to fail, to avoid multiplicity and waste.
28 Jan 2016

RE HIN-PRO INTERNATIONAL LOGISTICS LTD

Citation

RE HIN-PRO INTERNATIONAL LOGISTICS LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCW226/2014

The court has jurisdiction under RHC O 20 to allow a creditor to re-amend a winding-up petition to include debts that accrued after presentation; the test is less stringent than for writ amendments, and the court exercised its discretion to grant leave because the proposed re-amendments were not shown to be bound to fail, caused no irremediable prejudice, and allowing amendment served the CJR objectives and avoided multiplicity of proceedings.
25 May 2012

ASIA-PAC INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT LTD AND OTHERS v. SHEARMAN & STERLING (a firm) AND OTHERS

Citation

ASIA-PAC INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT LTD AND OTHERS v. SHEARMAN & STERLING (a firm) AND OTHERS
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV288/2011

A post-writ assignment of pre-existing causes of action does not create new causes of action; therefore amendments to plead that the assignee now holds those causes of action are not automatically barred by the rule in Eshelby and are a matter for the court's discretion. The Court exercised that discretion and granted leave to amend.