12 Aug 2016
GAINFIELD INVESTMENT LTD AND ANOTHER v. LAM YI LAI AND OTHERS
- Citation
- GAINFIELD INVESTMENT LTD AND ANOTHER v. LAM YI LAI AND OTHERS
- Court
- District Court
- Case number
- DCCJ3736/2014
The court refused the proposed late amendments: the estoppel amendment was unnecessary because the underlying fact (the Consent Order) was already pleaded and at this late stage the amendment should not be allowed; the acknowledgement amendment was refused because it was not pleaded despite documents being disclosed earlier, would prejudice the defendants by requiring additional evidence and likely disrupt the scheduled trial, and the lateness lacked adequate justification. The plaintiffs' summons to amend was dismissed and costs were awarded to the defendants.