Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Pleadings and amendments

Legal area

Court

15 Feb 2017

CHUN WO BUILDING CONSTRUCTION LTD v. METTA RESOURCES LTD

Citation

CHUN WO BUILDING CONSTRUCTION LTD v. METTA RESOURCES LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCT29/2013

VO claims amended on 16 December 2015 attract pre-judgment interest from that date; the design input award was insufficiently pleaded/quantified and attracts no pre-judgment interest; IPC 28 and 29 attract pre-judgment interest from their contractual due dates because the court will not look behind certificates given the breakdown of contractual machinery; diminution as set-off does not attract interest; Chun Wo is awarded 70% of its costs (to be taxed if not agreed), no costs order made on Metta's Counterclaim, and a certificate for four counsel is granted.
30 Sept 2016

GHEORGHE NICOLAESCU AND ANOTHER v. PANNAM LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

GHEORGHE NICOLAESCU AND ANOTHER v. PANNAM LTD AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP374/2016

The consolidation applications were dismissed because they were made too late, would unfairly prejudice defendants by introducing substantial new causes of action (economic duress and account of profits) not pleaded in the first action, and would require significant additional pleadings and evidence on the eve of a fixed trial date; no exceptional circumstances justified vacating the trial date.
25 Jun 2014

EXCEL CONCRETE LTD v. THE CONCRETE PRODUCERS ASSOCIATION OF HONG KONG LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

EXCEL CONCRETE LTD v. THE CONCRETE PRODUCERS ASSOCIATION OF HONG KONG LTD AND OTHERS
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV233/2013

The Court dismissed the appeal: the proposed re‑amendments (paras 4 and 26(jb)) were excessive, contained evidential and argumentative material contrary to Order 18 Rule 7(1), and were not directly relevant to the contextual background for the publications so as to mitigate damages; however, a narrowly‑pleaded honest belief based on the Short‑Piling Scandal may be pleaded to rebut malice and the defendants may reapply with a properly limited draft; the costs order re para 24A and the costs nisi for the appeal were upheld/modified as ordered.
15 Jan 2009

CHAN HUNG v. YUNG KWONG CHUNG

Citation

CHAN HUNG v. YUNG KWONG CHUNG
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA216/2004

Court allowed one specific interrogatory concerning the reason for the HK$3,300,000 transfer and ordered limited specific discovery for documents tied to allegations in paragraphs 18 and 24 of Chan Hung's supplemental witness statement, but refused extensive discovery (including the 2nd Summons) and disallowed other interrogatories as fishing or unnecessary under O.24 r.8; previous request for interrogatories without order was withdrawn; costs ordered nisi.
23 Jun 2006

MAGIC SCORE LTD v.THE HONGKONG AND SHANGHAI BANKING CORPORATION LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

MAGIC SCORE LTD v.THE HONGKONG AND SHANGHAI BANKING CORPORATION LTD AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA11077/1994

The court struck out the parts of the Plaintiff's Re-Amended Statement of Relief and Damages and Reply that alleged fraud, dishonesty and exemplary damages and refused leave to amend to add those causes because such serious allegations were not pleaded in the Statement of Claim, would unfairly prejudice the Defendants (including reliance on liability findings amounting to an impermissible head start), and constituted an abuse of process; separately, claims for rescission or pecuniary rescission against the Bank in respect of a sale to an innocent purchaser were held unarguable in principle (m…
14 Feb 2006

MAK KANG HOI v. HO YUK WAH DAVID

Citation

MAK KANG HOI v. HO YUK WAH DAVID
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV375/2004

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's construction of the February 1997 letters as the written agreement: the defendant was obliged to repay the plaintiff an amount equivalent to the value of listed company shares proportionate to the plaintiff's investment (calculated by reference to the second tranche issue price), and the contract necessarily included an implied term that an IPO/listing would occur within a reasonable time; the defendant's inconsistent and implausible evidence justified rejecting his alternative characterisations, and the appeal was dismissed.
15 Jul 1992

GRAND CHOICE CONSTRUCTION CO. LTD. v. DILLINGHAM CONSTRUCTION (H.K.) LTD.

Citation

GRAND CHOICE CONSTRUCTION CO. LTD. v. DILLINGHAM CONSTRUCTION (H.K.) LTD.
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV27/1992

The judge's finding that the Appellant's programme was not a term of the oral contract, combined with the absence of pleaded and admissible evidence establishing that the Project Master Programme was a variation or gave rise to an implied obligation to pay additional costs, meant there was no basis to award further sums; the appeal failed for lack of evidential and pleading foundation.

Hong Kong Case Law

CHUN WO BUILDING CONSTRUCTION LTD v. METTA RESOURCES LTD

GHEORGHE NICOLAESCU AND ANOTHER v. PANNAM LTD AND OTHERS

EXCEL CONCRETE LTD v. THE CONCRETE PRODUCERS ASSOCIATION OF HONG KONG LTD AND OTHERS

CHAN HUNG v. YUNG KWONG CHUNG

MAGIC SCORE LTD v.THE HONGKONG AND SHANGHAI BANKING CORPORATION LTD AND ANOTHER

MAK KANG HOI v. HO YUK WAH DAVID

GRAND CHOICE CONSTRUCTION CO. LTD. v. DILLINGHAM CONSTRUCTION (H.K.) LTD.