Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Addition of parties

Legal area

Court

20 Dec 2007

WONG YU CHO ROLLY t/a MARCO POLO and CHINA OVERSEA TECHNICAL DEVELOPMENT v. HIS HONOUR JUDGE CHOW SIU HUNG STEPHEN

Citation

WONG YU CHO ROLLY t/a MARCO POLO and CHINA OVERSEA TECHNICAL DEVELOPMENT v. HIS HONOUR JUDGE CHOW SIU HUNG STEPHEN
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ3884/2006

The appeal and applications were dismissed because the underlying District Court actions had been discontinued (so adding a defendant was misconceived), claims against opposing counsel lacked legal basis and were barred by separate proceedings (abuse of process), and the notices of appeal were filed out of time under Order 58 Rule 1(3) with no good reason to extend time; the Restricted Applications Order also barred the plaintiff from unilaterally pursuing consolidation without leave.
19 Jan 2007

FIRST INTERNATIONAL SUPPLIES LTD AND ANOTHER v. KO SHIU MING STANLEY

Citation

FIRST INTERNATIONAL SUPPLIES LTD AND ANOTHER v. KO SHIU MING STANLEY
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ3458/2005

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed because the intended appeal has no realistic prospect of success: the judge's primary findings of fact as to the parties, contract and loans were supported by evidence and based on credibility assessments not plainly wrong; the proposed new evidence is unlikely to meet the Ladd v Marshall tests; accordingly leave is refused and costs are awarded to the respondent.
15 May 1986

THE BANK OF TOKYO, LIMITED AND OTHERS v. REGENTHILL LIMITED AND OTHERS

Citation

THE BANK OF TOKYO, LIMITED AND OTHERS v. REGENTHILL LIMITED AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA3054/1985

The court held the rectification plea is speculative, inadequately particularized and unlikely to succeed because the offer letter did not create a definable binding obligation and the executed loan agreement already imposed obligations; the application to add Deacons as a defendant was refused as it would require reopening and restarting the proceedings; clause 14(b)(viii) was construed to require mortgagee consent for all disposals, and alternatively the parties were estopped by their course of dealing from taking a contrary position.

Hong Kong Case Law

WONG YU CHO ROLLY t/a MARCO POLO and CHINA OVERSEA TECHNICAL DEVELOPMENT v. HIS HONOUR JUDGE CHOW SIU HUNG STEPHEN

FIRST INTERNATIONAL SUPPLIES LTD AND ANOTHER v. KO SHIU MING STANLEY

THE BANK OF TOKYO, LIMITED AND OTHERS v. REGENTHILL LIMITED AND OTHERS