Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Amendment of claim

Legal area

Court

14 Oct 2016

IP CHIU FAT AND ANOTHER v. WONG FUNG LING AND OTHERS

Citation

IP CHIU FAT AND ANOTHER v. WONG FUNG LING AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1107/2012

Having regard to the judgment in the related 2nd action which rejected the plaintiffs' case of sole ownership and established a competing proprietary entitlement, the proposed amendment would impermissibly raise a new cause of action (ouster) based on a subsequent event and a different legal basis; allowing it would be unfair and contrary to the parties' aim of resolving disputes in a single trial, therefore leave to amend is refused and the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed against D1 and D3.
25 Aug 2016

THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF TUNG FAT BUILDING, BLOCK C, KAM PING STREET 對蘇洪新

Citation

THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF TUNG FAT BUILDING, BLOCK C, KAM PING STREET 對蘇洪新
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCSA70/2015

Although the amended particulars contained an error about the claim period, the tribunal’s review judgment correctly identified the claim period and affirmed that the total sum of $42,120.40 represented management fees up to February 2014; there was no legal or jurisdictional error to justify allowing the appeal, therefore the appeal is dismissed.
8 Oct 2013

WONG KIN v. HIM KEE FOOD DISTRIBUTION CO LTD

Citation

WONG KIN v. HIM KEE FOOD DISTRIBUTION CO LTD
Court

District Court
Case number

DCEC1771/2012

The court allowed the amendment because the respondent's own witness statement supplied credible material supporting an alternative principal‑contractor claim, the proposed amendment was not impermissibly inconsistent given corroborating sources, and delay or potential service on a third party did not outweigh the need to decide the matter on its merits; accordingly the respondent's objections were overruled and costs were apportioned by the court.
10 Jan 2013

PARON GLOVES INTERNATIONAL LTD v. WU WAI KIT AND ANOTHER

Citation

PARON GLOVES INTERNATIONAL LTD v. WU WAI KIT AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1357/2007

Leung was refused joinder because she lacked any direct proprietary interest in the specific subject matter (the Misappropriated Funds), which are assets of the company; her presence was therefore not necessary to determine the pleaded issues which are confined to whether the defendant misappropriated company funds; accordingly leave to intervene was refused and the plaintiff's appeal against the Master's joinder order was allowed; the plaintiff was permitted to amend to delete irrelevant allegations.
20 Jan 2011

SPORTOYS SALES INC. v. STALLION (ASIA) LTD

Citation

SPORTOYS SALES INC. v. STALLION (ASIA) LTD
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ1075/2010

Judgment by summary process was permissible only for the admitted 1st Sum; the 2nd Sum and Account Claim raise triable issues whether the plaintiff solicited and/or took the orders within the meaning of the Agreement and whether the defendant validly invoked Clause 3C; the Purported Admission did not establish contractual entitlement to 5% commissions; the 3rd Sum and the application to amend the Summons involve disputed factual and contractual issues (including alleged agreement on altered commission rates) and therefore cannot be resolved on summary judgment.
21 Sept 2009

TSUI MAN CHEONG v. LEE HUNG YING VICKY t/a FEI TSUI TRANSPORTATION CO

Citation

TSUI MAN CHEONG v. LEE HUNG YING VICKY t/a FEI TSUI TRANSPORTATION CO
Court

District Court
Case number

DCEC1290/2008

The summonses were dismissed because the applicant failed to show a reasonable excuse for the whole period of delay, the applicant was legally represented and had consciously delayed, the alleged earlier accident appeared inconsistent with contemporaneous hospital and Labour Department records and looked like an afterthought, and the respondent would be prejudiced; accordingly the court declined to exercise its discretion under s14(4).
21 Nov 2002

BUSY FIRM INVESTMENT LTD. v. SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT

Citation

BUSY FIRM INVESTMENT LTD. v. SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDRW6/2001

The Tribunal held that the term 'claim' in s.33(2) includes an amended claim so it had jurisdiction to extend time and granted the amendment because delay was caused by a mistake of fact by the Applicant's agent and no unrecoverable prejudice to the Crown was shown. On valuation the Tribunal rejected the Applicant's medium‑density R(B)2 assumption and Mr Sung's high unit rate, adopted a conservative alternative assumed zoning of R(D) (plot ratio 0.2) for valuation purposes under s.12(aa), accepted respondent surveyor's approach to existing agricultural use (HK$8.9M) but for alternative use ad…
8 May 2002

PAUL ROBERTS AND ANOTHER v. WONG HING WAH

Citation

PAUL ROBERTS AND ANOTHER v. WONG HING WAH
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ13016/2001

Defendant's failure to deliver any goods constituted a total failure of consideration, entitling plaintiffs to repayment of the fee; the court refused late upward amendments and adjournment for lack of justification and fairness to the defendant and assessed damages on the evidence presented, awarding the specified monetary sums resulting in a total of HK$41,740.
29 Oct 2001

LI HO MAN RAYMOND v. LI HUNG HON

Citation

LI HO MAN RAYMOND v. LI HUNG HON
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA497/2000

On the balance of probabilities the court preferred the plaintiff's account: documentary evidence (HK$1,000,000 in to a current account and immediately out; recurring round sums of HK$25,000 and HK$31,000) and witness credibility established that the defendant borrowed HK$1,000,000, paid some interest and partial repayments, and did not repay principal; set-off from TW cash flow reduced interest arrears; judgment entered for principal HK$1,000,000 and outstanding contractual interest HK$913,423.60, with interest at the judgment rate and costs to plaintiff.
27 Oct 1999

SHIH MEI CHIN v. JOHNSHON, STOKES & MASTER

Citation

SHIH MEI CHIN v. JOHNSHON, STOKES & MASTER
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV230/1999

The appeal was dismissed because the originating summons sought only delivery of documents and disclosed no cause of action; proceedings for discovery alone are not permissible absent an exception, the proposed amendment to plead discrimination/negligence was outside the scope of the appeal, and therefore there was nothing to set aside on appeal.