Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Alternative pleading

Legal area

Court

20 Nov 2008

RAJ KUMAR MAHAJAN v. HCL TECHNOLOGIES (HONG KONG) LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

RAJ KUMAR MAHAJAN v. HCL TECHNOLOGIES (HONG KONG) LTD AND OTHERS
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV46/2008

Order 11 must be read by reference to the action as a whole; an admission by the in‑jurisdiction defendant does not automatically bar the plaintiff from pursuing alternative defendants out of the jurisdiction; on the pleaded facts and documents the plaintiff demonstrated a serious issue to be tried as to the identity of the employer, so leave to serve out of jurisdiction was properly restored and the application to discharge the orders was properly dismissed.
20 Nov 2008

RAJ KUMAR MAHAJAN v. HCL TECHNOLOGIES (HONG KONG) LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

RAJ KUMAR MAHAJAN v. HCL TECHNOLOGIES (HONG KONG) LTD AND OTHERS
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV49/2008

Order 11 must be read by reference to the action as a whole; a local defendant's admission does not preclude the plaintiff pursuing alternative defendants and does not negate the need to consider whether there is a real issue to be tried against out‑of‑jurisdiction defendants; on the facts the plaintiff had shown a serious issue as to identity of employer so leave to serve out of jurisdiction was properly granted; the appeal is dismissed.
11 Jul 2008

CHAN TUNG v. LIU WAI SHAN

Citation

CHAN TUNG v. LIU WAI SHAN
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCPI524/2007

On the balance of probabilities the injury occurred while the plaintiff was squatting at the left end of the fence threading the bottom wire, not as pleaded; even accepting the defendant's scenario there was no negligence or statutory breach because the task was simple, not inherently dangerous and required no special instruction; accordingly the plaintiff's claim fails and he must pay defendant's costs.
12 Dec 2006

CHINA EVERBRIGHT FINANCE LTD AND ANOTHER v. CHAN YUNG AND ANOTHER

Citation

CHINA EVERBRIGHT FINANCE LTD AND ANOTHER v. CHAN YUNG AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA18300/1999

It was reasonable for plaintiffs to sue both defendants in the alternative based on pre-action correspondence and factual context; therefore an order shifting the 2nd defendant's costs was permissible. Considering the balance of hardship and the 2nd defendant's innocence, the court exercised its discretion to make a Bullock order so the 2nd defendant would actually receive reimbursement while permitting the plaintiffs to recoup from the 1st defendant.
3 Dec 2002

THYSSEN HUNNEBECK GmbH v. E MAN-SANFIELD JV CONSTRUCTION CO. LTD.

Citation

THYSSEN HUNNEBECK GmbH v. E MAN-SANFIELD JV CONSTRUCTION CO. LTD.
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCT40/2002

The amendment to add the second plaintiff was allowed because the Rules permit joinder to ensure matters can be effectually adjudicated and it was premature to decide the agency/principal issue on this application; procedural rules allowing alternative pleadings govern and any strike out or election issues are for later determination.
22 Mar 2001

CHINA EVERBRIGHT FINANCE LTD. AND ANOTHER v. FOREVER LTD. AND ANOTHER

Citation

CHINA EVERBRIGHT FINANCE LTD. AND ANOTHER v. FOREVER LTD. AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV446/2000

There was no evidential foundation in the material before the court to support the plaintiffs' alternative claim that the 2nd Defendant lacked authority; the defendant's pleadings and affirmations, read fairly, denied breach of warranty rather than admitting lack of authority; given inconsistent primary and alternative cases and absence of evidence the claims against the 2nd Defendant must be struck out.
22 Mar 2001

CHINA EVERBRIGHT FINANCE LTD. AND ANOTHER v. SILVERING COPE LTD. AND ANOTHER

Citation

CHINA EVERBRIGHT FINANCE LTD. AND ANOTHER v. SILVERING COPE LTD. AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV445/2000

The court held the plaintiffs failed to show any evidential foundation that the 2nd Defendant had breached a warranty of authority; the 2nd Defendant's pleadings and affirmations did not amount to admissions of lack of authority and therefore the alternative claims against him were mutually inconsistent with no available evidence to support them. Consequently the claims against the 2nd Defendant were struck out and an order nisi for costs was granted.
27 Jan 2000

TONG NAI KAN v. CHEUNG KING FUNG FRANCIS AND ANOTHER

Citation

TONG NAI KAN v. CHEUNG KING FUNG FRANCIS AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA8587/1998

The court allowed the amendment and dismissed the defendants' appeal because an alternative plea that the money was advanced to the 2nd defendant is permissible, the amendment was not so embarrassing as to be barred, and any prejudice could be addressed by costs; leave to amend before trial should be readily granted.
29 Apr 1996

KEEN LLOYD LTD. and Others v. SAM LEE LIGHTERING AND TRANSPORT CO. LTD. and Others

Citation

KEEN LLOYD LTD. and Others v. SAM LEE LIGHTERING AND TRANSPORT CO. LTD. and Others
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCL166/1993

Where points of claim, at an advanced stage post-discovery, use broad alternatives and "and/or" combinations that prevent each defendant from knowing the specific allegations against it as to ownership, possession, agency, custody, bailment and breaches of duty, the plaintiffs must supply further and better particulars clarifying the case against each defendant; failure to do so warrants an order for particulars and costs against the applicants.