Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Topic

Order 41 rule 4

Legal area

Court

8 Jul 2021

XINGAN LEAGUE NEWTON TRADING CO LTD v. HONG KONG GENGHIS KHAN GROUP LTD

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 1790
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCW396/2019

Relief from sanction was granted because the non-compliance was technical, explanations for Mainland notarisation difficulties were credible, and no significant prejudice resulted; the Ge Declaration contains wording amounting to an affirmation and its defects are irregularities curable under Order 41 r4 so leave to rely on it is granted; on the merits the petition fails because there exists a bona fide dispute on substantial grounds as to contractual construction of the Trilateral Agreement, therefore the petition is dismissed.
27 May 2004

TSUI KOON WAH v. LAM KING YUEN AND OTHERS

Citation

TSUI KOON WAH v. LAM KING YUEN AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA890/2003

The court held that although the affirmations were irregular for not giving residential addresses as required by Order 41 rule 1(4) and s7(4) of the Ordinance, the irregularity did not justify striking them out because the deponents' identities were clear; accordingly leave was granted under Order 41 rule 4 to use the supplemental affirmations in evidence, the affirmations and amended defence were not struck out, the appeal was dismissed and costs were apportioned between the parties.