Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Withdrawal of admissions

Legal area

Court

19 Aug 2024

AD (also known as AT) v. RT

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 2173
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMC1/2022

The application was dismissed because the respondent was conclusively bound by prior admissions agreeing the expert's valuations, no timely or formal application to withdraw those admissions was made, the respondent offered no credible or convincing explanation for resiling, the request was late and tactical and would cause irremediable prejudice to the petitioner given imminent trial preparation, and there was no adequate contrary expert evidence to support reopening the issue.
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).
29 May 2023

LING MAN YIU RAYMOND t/a BUILD TECH ENGINEERING CO v. YAU LUEN METAL WORKS LTD

Citation

[2023] HKDC 735
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ4198/2019

Leave to amend was granted in part and refused in part: ambiguous admission in §4 may be withdrawn and amendment allowed; only the first sentence of §8(2) (that the oral agreement pleaded is vague and lacking particulars) allowed and the remainder disallowed for lack of particulars; time-related allegations (§§9A,13,17) disallowed as insufficiently particular and prejudicial given trial imminence; sentence in §12 and §15A disallowed as embarrassing; interpretation aspect of §22 allowed but the phrase that a document is "outdated" disallowed as opening the door to new evidence and embarrassing…
11 Apr 2022

RESOURCES LEADER LTD v. HO NGO YING

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 1066
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2667/2018

Leave was granted because, although the applications were very late and unexplained, the updated expert opinion concerned central substantive issues already addressed by both experts in a joint statement, there was no evidence of ambush or bad faith, the plaintiff's expert had effectively been aware of the opposing view, consequential steps could be completed in time for trial, and overall fairness favoured permitting the defendant to pursue the substantive case; however, the defendant was ordered to pay the plaintiff's costs on a nisi on an indemnity basis because of the lateness and disrupt…
24 May 2021

CHEUNG, JOSEPH WAI LEUK v. CHAN KWOK PIN AND OTHERS

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 1448
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCPI264/2012

Leave to amend was refused insofar as the amendments sought to withdraw the specific admissions that D1 was the teaching instructor and founder/director and that D2 organised the classes: defendants failed to give a satisfactory explanation for why the admissions were made or for the prolonged delay (about six years) in seeking to resile, the application was not shown to be made in good faith, and the balance of prejudice strongly favoured the plaintiff because withdrawal would require fresh investigation, risk limitation defences and cause irremediable prejudice. Other non-disputed drafting…
30 Sept 2020

CHOW CHING YEE v. WONG HUNG KEE

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 2555
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2969/2017

The plaintiff, represented by counsel, unequivocally elected not to object to the Amended Defence by taking numerous fresh steps in the proceedings after its filing; having done so she was estopped from subsequently challenging the amendments. Accordingly the Master erred in expunging the Amended Defence; the appeal is allowed, retrospective leave is granted for the Amended Defence dated 18 March 2019, reamendments are permitted and consequential amendments to the Reply allowed within specified times.
8 Jun 2020

HKSAR v. TSANG YIK SANG

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 1066
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCC225/2018

The court exercised its discretion to permit withdrawal of the admissions as to the drug quantities because material discrepancies in recorded weights, failures in expected police weighing procedure before sealing, and a short unexplained custody interval undermined the reliability of the admitted weights; the Newton hearing must determine the proven narcotic weights and sentencing must follow the weights established at that hearing.
8 May 2019

HKSAR v. NGAI HON KWONG

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 1205
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCC78/2016

The court found no sufficient basis to permit withdrawal of s65C admissions because the accused understood the scope of the admitted facts; there was no proven tampering or demonstrated unfairness warranting exclusion of the video‑recorded interviews so the videos could be played; and the prosecution's application to reopen its case was refused because the proposed evidence was not sufficiently important and reopening would be inappropriate absent exceptional circumstances.
14 Dec 2018

CHOW KAM HUNG v. NG WAI KWONG AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 2671
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2294/2013

There were no clear and unambiguous admissions in the defendants' pleadings as to the Land being a partnership asset; even if such admissions existed, the court would exercise its discretion to allow the proposed amendments because they were made in good faith, were not a strategic manoeuvre, no trial date was fixed and the balance of prejudice favoured allowing amendment to give effect to the overriding objective; therefore the registrar's decisions allowing amendments were upheld and the appeals dismissed.
14 Dec 2018

CHOW KAM HUNG v. HOI KONG IRONWARES GODOWN CO LTD

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 2671
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA621/2012

No clear and unambiguous admissions were established on the pleadings as to the status of the Land; even if some averments could be construed as admissions, the court would exercise its discretion to allow the defendants to amend because the applications were made in good faith, there was no evidence of strategic manipulation, the prejudice to defendants of being frozen to pleaded positions outweighed any prejudice to the plaintiff, and no trial date had been fixed. Accordingly the Registrar's allowance of the amendment applications was upheld and the appeals dismissed.