Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Leave to amend statement of claim

Legal area

Court

22 Mar 2024

SUCCESS LANE DEVELOPMENT LTD v. FERGURSON HONG KONG LTD t/a NEW WORLD MILLENNIUM HONG KONG HOTEL

Citation

[2024] HKDC 482
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ2191/2023

Adjournment refused because the plaintiff's late engagement of new solicitors and late application did not justify delaying the scheduled hearing; change of legal team is not sufficient reason absent exceptional circumstances, and the defendant would be prejudiced by delay to its discovery application; plaintiff had adequate prior opportunity and professional papers and could apply later for amendments if necessary; costs awarded to defendant.
22 Mar 2024

LI NGAN KWAN AND ANOTHER v. GAO LI HUI AND OTHERS

Citation

[2024] HKCA 298
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP35/2022

The court held that because the proposed amendments and grounds of appeal were largely inter-related and based on a common factual matrix, an issue-based apportionment was inappropriate; the plaintiffs were overall successful on appeal and were therefore entitled to two-thirds of the costs of the appeals, with specified allocation of costs below tied to which amendments were allowed or disallowed; the EOT Summons attracts no order as to costs; costs of and occasioned by allowed amendments are to be borne by the 1st defendant and, where applicable, other defendants.
13 Aug 2013

LEUNG KWAI LING v. HK GLORY PROPERTIES LTD

Citation

LEUNG KWAI LING v. HK GLORY PROPERTIES LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA347/2013

No sufficient basis to join Lee or to permit the plaintiff to represent him without Lee's verified consent or personal application; plaintiff's applications to adjourn and to file further affidavits were premature or repetitive and lacked material change in circumstances; defendant's service was properly effected and prior dismissed applications cannot be collaterally re‑litigated; accordingly P's 7th and 9th Summonses dismissed, P's 8th Summons dismissed except retrospective leave granted for two specified affidavits dated 19 July 2013; costs ordered against plaintiff.
28 May 2013

TAIBAO INVESTMENT AND MANAGEMENT (HONG KONG) CO LTD v. KARY ENTERPRISES (HOLDINGS) LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

TAIBAO INVESTMENT AND MANAGEMENT (HONG KONG) CO LTD v. KARY ENTERPRISES (HOLDINGS) LTD AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA642/2011

The master's leave to amend was set aside because the pleaded documents did not constitute a written acknowledgement within s23(3) Cap 347 and therefore could not answer the limitation defence; the plaintiff's claim against D2 was for damages (not a debt or liquidated sum) so s23(3) was inapplicable; consequently D1's appeal was allowed and D2 was granted extension of time to appeal and its appeal allowed.
10 Sept 2010

SUN FOCUS INVESTMENT LTD v. TANG SHING BOR AND ANOTHER

Citation

SUN FOCUS INVESTMENT LTD v. TANG SHING BOR AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA538/2007

Court granted leave to file and serve the fresh statement of claim because the pleaded oral agreement and breaches could properly be regarded as arising out of the same or substantially the same facts as earlier claims such that s.35 could apply and, on the pleaded facts, the operation of s.26(1)(b) Cap.347 could delay the limitation period due to alleged deliberate concealment; further the pleaded loss is arguably not reflective loss because plaintiff sues in defendants' personal capacity for self-dealing/conflict and contemporaneous documents do not conclusively displace the oral agreement,…
7 Mar 2008

SOFT VIEW INTERNATIONAL TECHNOLOGY CO LTD v. DANRIVER, INC AND ANOTHER

Citation

SOFT VIEW INTERNATIONAL TECHNOLOGY CO LTD v. DANRIVER, INC AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2744/2006

Plaintiff failed to establish a good arguable case under O 11 r1(1)(e) or (f) because the contract delivery/inspection in Hong Kong was not pleaded and was supported only by evidence filed after the application, and there was no evidence the alleged misrepresentations were made or loss sustained in Hong Kong; consequently Hong Kong is not the clearly appropriate forum and service of the writ is set aside.
7 Jun 2006

MA TAK KIN JOHN v. DR YU CHUNG PING

Citation

MA TAK KIN JOHN v. DR YU CHUNG PING
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCPI614/2002

Interrogatories withdrawn because they sought information obtainable by cross-examination and plaintiff failed to show essential need or irremediable prejudice if left to trial; leave to amend Statement of Claim granted because the proposed motive particulars were not wholly irrelevant or merely scandalous given material before the court and could support negligence if proved; psychiatric expert report refused because available material did not show ongoing psychiatric disorder or current suicidal risk and commissioning the report would be disproportionate and wasteful.
6 Jun 2006

NATAMON PROTPAKORN v. CITIBANK, N.A.

Citation

NATAMON PROTPAKORN v. CITIBANK, N.A.
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV394/2005

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal with costs and directed that the plaintiff is at liberty to apply for leave to amend the statement of claim in the Court of First Instance; the Court refused to determine the leave application on appeal and ordered costs to be taxed on the party and party scale.
8 Dec 2000

THE ALMERINDA

Citation

THE ALMERINDA
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAJ222/1994

The judge exercised discretion on costs and ordered no costs against the defendants for their summons to dismiss; ordered that costs of and occasioned by the plaintiffs' amendments be to the defendants but awarded the plaintiffs 70% of the costs of the hearing of the amendment application (to be taxed if not agreed); refused to suspend further directions pending the defendants' appeal; extended time for the defendants to file an amended Defence to 4pm on 22 December 2000 and for service of an amended Reply by an additional seven days;issued a timetable for supplementary lists, inspection, wit…
30 Sept 1997

HUNDRED HEALTH LIMITED v. KWAN PO YEE

Citation

HUNDRED HEALTH LIMITED v. KWAN PO YEE
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1764/1997

A master should not grant a fixed extension to serve a defence and counterclaim without evidence (usually an affidavit) explaining why the period is required; absence of such evidence justifies the respondent's appeal and may affect costs allocation.