Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Pleadings and amendment

Legal area

Court

14 Jun 2024

廖芷彤對太興環球發展有限公司

Citation

[2024] HKDC 928
Court

District Court
Case number

DCPI2972/2021

Leave to appeal was refused because the proposed appeal lacked a reasonable prospect of success and no principled error in law or obvious factual error was shown; the trial judge properly exercised discretion in excluding vicarious liability raised only at closing, the factual findings (including apportionment and damages) were supported by evidence, and the costs variation was granted with an uplift of 6% above the judgment rate and return of conditional payments to the defendant's solicitor.
6 Jul 2023

WORKWISE CORPORATION v. THE OCCUPIER(S) of Lot No 250, Section A of Lot No 251, Sub-Section 2 and Sub-Section 3 of Section B of Lot No 251, The Remaining Portion of Section B of Lot No 251, The Remaining Portion of Lot No 265 and Lot No 266 all in Demarcation District No 111, Yuen Long, New Territories, Hong Kong AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2023] HKDC 926
Court

District Court
Case number

DCMP1067/2018

The application for leave to appeal was refused because the proposed grounds lacked reasonable prospects: no legal error was shown in dismissing the plaintiff after finding adverse possession by the 2nd defendant; the alleged departure related only to delineation of area and caused no demonstrable prejudice given expert investigations covered both areas and the plaintiff called no factual witnesses; the challenged factual findings about historical fences and continuity of possession were supported by credible witness testimony and expert opinion and were not plainly wrong.
29 Jun 2022

ANTHONY ERIC RYAN HOTUNG v. HOTUNG, MICHAEL ERIC A.B. MAK SHUN MING, the Executor of the Estate of HO YUEN KI WINNIE, also known as HO YUEN KI, deceased

Citation

[2022] HKCA 951
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV151/2021

Appeal dismissed because the appellant was bound by the specific breaches pleaded in the re-amended statement of claim; the broader 'safeguarding duty' breaches relied on at appeal were unpleaded and could not be introduced by reference to trial evidence; the only breach proved was failure to inform the beneficiary on reaching majority but no causal link or loss was established, justifying only nominal damages of $1; costs awarded against the appellant.
10 Mar 2022

SIU SHU CHING AND OTHERS v. SIU KWOK CHEUNG AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 594
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1641/2013

On the balance of probabilities contemporaneous documents and witness evidence established that the Plaintiffs (and their predecessors) granted an express gratuitous licence to the 1st Defendant's late father and stepmother to occupy the disputed lots; the Defendants therefore lacked the requisite animus possidendi to establish adverse possession; accordingly the Plaintiffs are entitled to vacant possession and the Defendants' counterclaims for adverse possession are dismissed.
15 Oct 2021

MELVIN WAXMAN AND ANOTHER v. LI FEI YU AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 3174
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1972/2012

The court held that the Amended Statement of Claim, when read as a whole including paragraphs pleading the Shareholders' Agreement, subsequent pleadings and the re‑framed prayers, pleads both contractual and trust bases (contract as further or alternative); deletion of certain words from the original Prayer did not effect abandonment of the contractual claim and there is no reasonable basis to confine the plaintiffs to a trust claim only; accordingly defendants' submission is rejected and plaintiffs are entitled to costs of the application.
11 Jun 2021

天立娛樂有限公司對李偉祥及另二人

Citation

[2021] HKDC 627
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ1911/2016

Plaintiff is entitled to delivery of the audiovisual recordings and injunctive relief because the contracts vested ownership and defendants breached clause(s) by refusing delivery; defendants failed to plead or prove a legal lien/retention right (they did not meet the legal requirements or rely on properly pleaded grounds), and the plaintiff lawfully paid a reasonable settlement of RMB840,000 to its buyer as provable loss caused by defendants' breach; first defendant's counterclaims fail for lack of pleaded amendment, inadequate evidence and inconsistent/compressed accounting; costs and inter…
23 Jul 2020

DELCO PARTICIPATION B.V. v. CHIHO ENVIRONMENTAL GROUP LTD (formerly known as CHIHO TIANDE GROUP LTD) AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 1643
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2939/2016

The summonses were dismissed because the court found the fraud exception engaged and substantial disputed facts and issues of dishonesty (the alleged Scheme and authenticity/character of the Debts) that could not be resolved on affidavit; the plaintiff was seeking judgment on factual assumptions it simultaneously contested and there were multiple complex triable issues (including a pending appeal affecting potential additional set-off) making summary disposal and interim payment inappropriate.
9 Jan 2020

ELIAS NEIL DAVID AND ANOTHER v. CHENG SUI CHU AND OTHERS

Citation

[2020] HKCA 31
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP174/2019

The Court refused leave because the defendants' grounds lacked a reasonable prospect of success: the trial judge's factual findings (on termination of the Head Lease, the unpleaded notice to quit, the identification of excreta and nuisance acts) were supported by evidence and not plainly wrong, the complained points were either unpleaded or properly considered, and the quantum of damages was within the judge's discretion; accordingly no appeal should be heard and costs were awarded against the applicants.
4 Sept 2019

WAN HOI YAN AND ANOTHER v. HO CHI HUNG AND OTHERS

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 2161
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2177/2013

The Temple (Bo Wo Temple) was a public charitable trust; Plaintiffs (P1 and P2) have locus under s.57A Trustee Ordinance; D1 and D2 hold legal title to Flat 10C as bare trustees for the Temple; contemporaneous Family Court admission by D1 and documentary evidence and credible witness evidence supported this finding; therefore D1 and D2 must deliver possession and execute assignment to P2 and pay mesne profits; defendants’ counterclaim dismissed.
7 Feb 2018

YIP YAN CHEUNG GARY v. CHOW TIN CHOI

Citation

[2018] HKCA 70
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV123/2016

The appeal was allowed because the trial judge's findings about possession between 1981 and 2002 were equivocal and critical facts about dispossession after the 1981 repossession were not properly pleaded or investigated; accordingly the matter is remitted for a limited retrial on dispossession since 1981 and the nature and extent of occupation 1981–2002, and the Defendant is granted leave to amend pleadings to plead an alternative case of adverse possession commencing after 1981.