Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Amendment of defence

Legal area

Court

17 Apr 2026

WONG TO YICK WOOD LOCK OINTMENT LTD v. SUN ASCENT DEVELOPMENT LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2374
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCIP47/2024

The court allowed the 3rd Defendant to withdraw prior admissions and amend her defence because the withdrawals were arguable, made in good faith, explicable on the facts, and the 3rd Defendant's current case (nominee director with no participation or blind-eye knowledge) had a reasonable prospect of success; accordingly summary judgment against the 3rd Defendant was refused and unconditional leave to defend was granted; judgment was entered against the 1st, 2nd and 5th Defendants who did not contest liability, subject to refusal of an overly vague blanket injunction.
15 Dec 2025

FAN HAO LING SANDRA v. WONG MAN FAI FRANKIE

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 6324
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA614/2024

The defendant's case was inherently implausible and materially contradicted by contemporaneous written documents and subsequent conduct (including signing the written loan acknowledging a three-year term and compound interest and communications about repayment), the belated amendment and new defences lacked credibility, no triable issues were raised; accordingly summary judgment was appropriate and the amendment application was dismissed.
5 Dec 2025

POOSAALA RAM PRASAD v. THE HONGKONG AND SHANGHAI BANKING CORPORATION LTD

Citation

[2025] HKCA 934
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP103/2025

The Court refused admission of the medical records because they would not affect the leave/extension determination or the merits of the intended interlocutory appeal; the Court refused leave to appeal and to extend time because the intended appeal had no reasonable prospect of success; the Defendant complied with the sealed unless order (filing within the 7‑day period as interpreted) and the allowance of the amendment was a proper exercise of discretion in furtherance of the overriding objective, with any prejudice compensable by costs.
12 May 2025

MAK HIN KWAN v. WIKI CAPITAL FINANCE LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 2140
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2617/2018

The court dismissed both summonses for leave to amend the defences because the applications were made after inordinate unexplained delay and the proposed amendments would cause significant prejudice; additionally, the necessary factual basis to establish illegality was not before the court, so leave to amend was refused and costs were awarded to the Plaintiff on an indemnity basis with a certificate for two counsel.
28 Feb 2025

POOSAALA RAM PRASAD v. THE HONGKONG AND SHANGHAI BANKING CORPORATION LTD

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 900
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA279/2021

Short delay and explanation justified extension to hear merits; sealed Order required filing within seven days of 20 December 2024 and, applying mandatory O.3 r.2 computation rules, the Re‑Amended Defence filed on 2 January 2025 was within time; there was no basis to go behind the sealed wording or to find the sealing process invalid; the amendment was properly allowed in exercise of fresh discretion; the appeal had no merits and is dismissed with costs to follow the event.
1 Dec 2023

BISON BIRDSVILLE GLOBAL LTD v. YANG MINGZHI AND OTHERS

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 3130
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2031/2020

The judge held there were no credible triable issues: the contemporaneous documents and admissions established payment of RMB10,000,000 and the Plaintiff's prima facie case; the illegality of the Hong Kong-to-Mainland remittance under PRC law did not render the Hong Kong‑governed Shareholders' Agreement unenforceable; pleas of agency, misrepresentation and conspiracy lacked particulars and credible evidence; therefore the Master's summary judgment in the Old Action was upheld and the proposed re-amendments were refused as to D1 and D2.
29 Nov 2023

CHOI WAI KWONG v. CHOI WAI KEUNG

Citation

[2023] HKDC 1662
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ6076/2019

The learned Master’s order striking out parts of the Amended Defence was set aside because the defendant had pleaded sufficient factual material to make his mistake/rectification and trust defences arguable at trial; those matters were not plain and obvious no‑cause defences warranting strike out. The proposed re-amendment was dismissed because it perpetuated an irregular standalone Counterclaim, contained contradictory and embarrassing allegations (including unparticularised fraud), and thus should not be allowed.
30 Aug 2023

侯福華及另一人對冼利年及另二人

Citation

[2023] HKDC 1198
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ320/2018

Defendants failed to raise any triable or arguable defence: the asserted contractual licence lacked new consideration because the plaintiff's alleged requirements were existing duties and the lease incorporated post-termination obligations; proprietary estoppel failed because the alleged expenditure was largely routine or necessitated by storm damage, defendants had countervailing benefits (rent-free occupation), and there was no unconscionability sufficient to bar the owners reclaiming possession. Accordingly summary judgment was entered for plaintiffs for possession and mesne profits; propo…
20 Jan 2022

DYNAMIC MATRIX LTD v. WONG HOI YAN BIBIANNA

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 280
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2205/2019

The application was refused because the defendant failed the first Ladd v Marshall condition: the evidence and documents were in her possession or were in the hearing bundle at the December 2020 hearing and her prior legal representation meant she had the opportunity to present them; no adjournment or application to file further evidence was made, and dissatisfaction with prior advice does not excuse non‑compliance with Ladd v Marshall.
24 Aug 2021

TANG CHUNG WAH also known as ALAN CHUNG WAH TANG AND OTHERS v. ON SKY ENTERPRISE (HK) LTD

Citation

[2021] HKDC 925
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ4190/2020

The court found a bona fide triable issue as to the meaning of "costs estimate" in the Engagement Letter and whether defendant's approval was required before drawing fees beyond the HK$300,000 retainer; that issue is determinative of entitlement to the three fee notes, so summary judgment was inappropriate and unconditional leave to defend was granted and the defendant's proposed amendment allowed.