25 Feb 2026
The claimant's email was accepted as a valid notice of discontinuance; the respondents bore the burden to prove maliciousness, frivolousness or special circumstances under s 73C(3) and failed to discharge that burden on the evidence and timing; the court therefore ordered that each party bear its own costs under s 73C(3).
2 May 2024
Wellpoint is not a member of the class of Plaza Owners, is not liable under the DMC to IO, and the Sub-DMC/Service Agreements do not confer an unfettered power or duty to be sued as representative for individual owners in respect of personal contractual liabilities; there is a real risk of conflict of interest and absence of authorisation and funding from owners; accordingly the ANOA discloses no reasonable cause of action against Wellpoint and must be struck out, the Representative Summons is dismissed and the action is dismissed.
16 Nov 2017
The Sub-DMC, construed purposively, covers matters concerning the External Wall and vests the Manager with authority to represent the owners and commence proceedings touching or concerning the Arcade; consequently the 1st and 2nd plaintiffs were not suitable representatives and the court exercised its discretion under Order 15 r 12 to strike out the representative parts of the Amended Writ and Statement of Claim, while preserving the plaintiffs' individual rights to sue on their own behalf.
19 Aug 2008
The defendants were entitled to an order allowing their costs or any part thereof to be, at their option, borne and paid out of the trust fund or property of Kan Kung Cheung Tso because the proceedings were brought on behalf of that Tso and the plaintiffs' description met the requirement in the cited Tang authorities; the plaintiffs' personal liability for costs was already joint and several making a separate first order unnecessary.
24 Jun 2005
Amendments were permitted: the court followed Lim Ban Thoon and concluded the amendment application was filed within the relevant limitation period and the court should exercise its discretion to allow the plaintiff to amend to clarify it sues on behalf of members as at 9/8/97 and to add Tong alternatively. The court found there was prima facie authority for Tong to sign on behalf of the association and that the proposed amendments arose from substantially the same facts. Specific discovery of the full membership list was refused as unnecessary and intrusive, but an expurgated extract page of…
23 Mar 2004
Given the association's demonstrated ongoing participation in prior litigation, the evidence of numerous members, Mr Kwan's established role as representative, and established authorities permitting representative defendants and tort liability of associations, the appointment of Mr Kwan as representative was proper and necessary to bind those affected; the appeal against that appointment was therefore dismissed.
10 Sept 2002
Order 14A declined because the question whether clause 24 limits damages to additional completion costs is not a pure question of law and requires factual findings (notably whether the project was abandoned) which are absent on the material before the court; the strike out application failed because a claim for wasted expenditure is not inherently bad in law and the pleaded case sufficiently alleges breach, termination and causation which are matters for trial; the joinder/stay was refused because Maybank validly represents the syndicate, no good reason existed to exercise the court's discret…
12 Dec 2000
The court directed that a comprehensive trial of fourteen lead Plaintiffs proceed on liability, limitation and quantum together; Plaintiffs must provide specified further and better particulars and discovery relating initially to lead Plaintiffs within set timetables; the Defendant may rely on distinctions in conditions of service (rank, institution) without an amendment restricting that defence; costs are in the cause except costs reserved for specified particulars.
27 May 1999
The appeal was dismissed because the Fatal Accidents claim could not be maintained by the appellant who was not an executor or administrator and the statutory exception in s5(2) did not apply, and the estate claim under Order 15 r6A failed because the proceedings were commenced in the appellant's name (not the deceased's), so the sub‑rule did not apply to appoint a representative for the estate.
10 Mar 1994
Rule 554 did not apply because the shares had been registered by the Registrar; the Representative Third Party was not entitled to replacement stock or to measure damages at date of judgment; damages should be measured by market value at date of rectification (18 March 1993); accordingly the application is dismissed with costs to the Fourth and Fifth Parties.