Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Prejudice and costs

Legal area

Court

13 Oct 2025

CTBC BANK CO., LTD. V. INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL BANK OF CHINA LIMITED

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 4966
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCL3/2024

The Defendant failed to show good reasons for a stay pending appeal: although leave to appeal was granted (so the appeal is arguable), the balance of prejudice favoured the Plaintiff because the potential prejudice to the Plaintiff (risk of losing witnesses and trial scheduling difficulties) was not readily compensable by costs, the costs at risk were modest compared with the claim, and practical case management could address timing or conflict concerns; accordingly the summons for a stay was dismissed.
6 Mar 2025

TSE MAN YIU AND OTHERS v. TSE MAN WAI AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 967
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP2557/2017

Application to amend to plead illegality was refused (save for two clerical amendments) because the proposed amendment was extremely late with no adequate explanation, the illegality case was doubtful on its face (lacked pleaded dishonesty, causation and particulars and relied on public‑policy breach insufficient to establish illegality under Monat Investment and relevant authority), and allowing it would cause real prejudice to Plaintiffs that could not be adequately compensated by costs.
14 Dec 2022

HUI (ANNIE) GUO v. YUEDONG XU AND OTHERS

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 3785
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCL3/2019

The court allowed the amendment application in large part because delay and the alleged prejudice were not sufficient to bar amendment absent a trial date and where prejudice appeared compensable by costs; the challenged pleas were not plainly defective and raised issues properly for trial; evidentiary matter in specific paragraphs was disallowed as inappropriate for pleadings.
4 Nov 2022

LEE KOK CHE AND OTHERS v. ROYAL MORTGAGE LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 3500
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1308/2015

Leave to amend was granted generally to achieve fair trial management, but the court refused the specific proposed paragraph 20A because its admission at the late stage would cause serious prejudice to the 1st Defendant by likely requiring further discovery and expert evidence and risking vacating the trial dates; other proposed amendments were permitted.
5 May 2022

PEACE MARK (HOLDINGS) LTD (IN LIQUIDATION) AND ANOTHER v. CHAU CHAM WONG PATRICK AND OTHERS

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 1623
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2371/2009

The court allowed the proposed amendments because the contested matters were either already pleaded (against Tsang) or reflected in the List of Agreed Issues, the lateness was attributable to an understandable oversight, and no real prejudice was shown that could not be compensated by costs; however Amendment (i) was refused as regards Leung because he was not relying on Article 166 and permitting it would unfairly move the goalposts against him at a late stage.
14 Sept 2021

HYDROTECH WATERPROOFING SOLUTIONS LTD v. SHUN YUEN CONSTRUCTION CO LTD

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 2785
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCT44/2020

The application to amend was refused (except for parts consented by the defendant) because the proposed amendments were made late (nine weeks before trial), were unparticularised, introduced new causes of action and serious allegations that would prejudice the defendant and disrupt trial preparation, and therefore permitting them would be unfair and contrary to the court's duty to secure a just resolution under the case management rules.
13 Feb 2017

ANTHONY ERIC RYAN HOTUNG v. HO YUEN KI AND OTHERS

Citation

ANTHONY ERIC RYAN HOTUNG v. HO YUEN KI AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1216/2006

Leave to amend to plead exemplary damages was refused because, although the allegations derived broadly from pleaded facts, the plaintiff could not be permitted to add a punitive claim where the defendant, by reason of age and infirmity and the lateness of the application, would be unable to give explanation or proper instructions, causing irremediable prejudice that could not be compensated by costs; consequently the appeal was allowed and the Master's grant of leave in relation to exemplary damages was set aside.
31 Jan 2012

FOOK LEE HOLDINGS LTD v. JOY FUTURE INTERNATIONAL LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

FOOK LEE HOLDINGS LTD v. JOY FUTURE INTERNATIONAL LTD AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA321/2010

The amendment was allowed because the defendants had given prior notice via a witness statement prepared earlier, the plaintiff could not demonstrate prejudice that could not be compensated by costs, there was sufficient time (four weeks) to deal with consequential steps, and any necessary protective case management directions (timelines and costs) could address any prejudice.
15 Jun 2009

TSANG KING WAN v. REALRAY INVESTMENTS LTD

Citation

TSANG KING WAN v. REALRAY INVESTMENTS LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA922/2006

The primary proposed amendment was refused for being overly vague and insufficiently particularised; the alternative proposed amendment specifying particular alternative dates of possession was allowed because those dates were supported by evidence already adduced and the defendant would not suffer irreparable prejudice nor would the trial require adjournment.
7 Jul 2008

CHAN MAN WUN v. SHING CHEONG HONG SERVICES LTD

Citation

CHAN MAN WUN v. SHING CHEONG HONG SERVICES LTD
Court

District Court
Case number

DCPI2450/2007

The application to amend was allowed because the proposed amendments relied on the same facts, any prejudice to the defendant from lateness could be compensated by costs and a short adjournment (one to two months) was acceptable to ensure the matter is decided on its merits.