Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Re-amendment of pleadings

Legal area

Court

12 Oct 2023

WAI NAM ENGINEERING LTD v. NGA LUEN CONSTRUCTION & ENGINEERING COMPANY LTD

Citation

[2023] HKDC 1447
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ1806/2021

The appeal is dismissed because the defendant provided a credible explanation that it acted in good faith in withdrawing admissions, the re‑amendments disclose triable issues with a reasonable prospect of success as to liability and quantum of additional works, and any prejudice to the plaintiff could be compensated by costs; accordingly the defendant was entitled to re‑amend and the plaintiff must be granted leave to re‑amend its reply within 28 days and pay the defendant's appeal costs (certificate for one counsel).
30 Sept 2013

HO SIN YING v. CHAN YUI LING AND ANOTHER

Citation

HO SIN YING v. CHAN YUI LING AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1531/2012

The 2012 consent order undertaking not to commence "another action based on the same cause of action" must be construed in its factual background and was intended to prevent the plaintiff from pursuing further actions arising from the same factual matrix; the present action, though couched in different causes of action, arises from the same facts and is caught by the undertaking and thus constitutes an abuse of process. Independently, the pleaded causes are defective and, insofar as they allege breaches occurring before the deceased's death, are time-barred under Cap 347. Leave to re-amend wa…
21 Jan 2011

TSOI YIU CHUNG v. ING LIFE INSURANCE CO (BERMUDA) LTD formerly known as AETNA LIFE INSURANCE CO (BERMUDA) LTD

Citation

TSOI YIU CHUNG v. ING LIFE INSURANCE CO (BERMUDA) LTD formerly known as AETNA LIFE INSURANCE CO (BERMUDA) LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2447/2007

Despite the serious and inexcusable delay, the court allowed the re-amendment because the plaintiff had been the victim of a serious fraud by the defendant's agent and the proposed amendments materially strengthened the case; balancing prejudice to the defendant against the risk of denying the plaintiff a substantive remedy, the court concluded justice required permitting the re-amendment but vacating the trial and imposing costs consequences on the plaintiff.
5 Jun 2006

李漢能 v. 葉慧璣

Citation

李漢能 v. 葉慧璣
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2275/2002

Leave to re-amend and to join the executrix was incorrectly granted because the 1st defendant had delivered a comprehensive account on 6 November 2004 rendering the proposed new cause of action futile and because there were no special circumstances to justify a beneficiary suing in his own name; accordingly the appeal is allowed, the re-amendment and joinder are set aside and the Chinese amended statement of claim is struck out, with costs as ordered.
21 Feb 2006

SAM WOO BORE PILE FOUNDATION LTD v. CHINA OVERSEAS FOUNDATION ENGINEERING LTD

Citation

SAM WOO BORE PILE FOUNDATION LTD v. CHINA OVERSEAS FOUNDATION ENGINEERING LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCT76/1996

Item 4 of BQs 5 and 10 must be read as a fixed extra-over unit rate per pile excluding SMM 9.14 by virtue of special condition cl.1(j) and the language of the BQs; accordingly Sam Woo's claim for additional payments for excess toeing-in is unsustainable and those parts of the Amended Statement of Claim are struck out; proposed re-amendments are disallowed because they introduce a new cause of action outside the six-year limitation and are estopped by prior payment-in, and related finance/interest claims therefore fail.
16 Nov 2004

JIAN YU QIANG v. LI SHI LIANG AND OTHERS

Citation

JIAN YU QIANG v. LI SHI LIANG AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA459/2003

The court ordered the plaintiff personally to provide sworn answers to the defendants' interrogatories and to answer the defendants' request for further and better particulars because the solicitor's affirmation was hearsay and inadequate; the court allowed 21 days for compliance and refused to grant a stay pending any re-amendment application, while reserving the right to consider consequences if a re-amendment is actually sought.
12 Apr 1999

EASTFAITH FINANCE LTD. v. LAU WAN FU JOHN

Citation

EASTFAITH FINANCE LTD. v. LAU WAN FU JOHN
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA8633/1998

Though the new allegation constituted a distinct cause of action, it could and should have been raised by amendment in the earlier proceedings once the need emerged; therefore the correct course was to stay the new proceedings pending the plaintiff's application for leave to re-amend the earlier Statement of Claim, with specified consequences if leave is granted or refused.

Hong Kong Case Law

WAI NAM ENGINEERING LTD v. NGA LUEN CONSTRUCTION & ENGINEERING COMPANY LTD

HO SIN YING v. CHAN YUI LING AND ANOTHER

TSOI YIU CHUNG v. ING LIFE INSURANCE CO (BERMUDA) LTD formerly known as AETNA LIFE INSURANCE CO (BERMUDA) LTD

李漢能 v. 葉慧璣

SAM WOO BORE PILE FOUNDATION LTD v. CHINA OVERSEAS FOUNDATION ENGINEERING LTD

JIAN YU QIANG v. LI SHI LIANG AND OTHERS

EASTFAITH FINANCE LTD. v. LAU WAN FU JOHN