Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Amendment of grounds

Legal area

Court

2 Aug 2023

MAK CHEE WAI 對 W.K. MAXY INDUSTRIES LTD 及另一人

Citation

[2023] HKDC 1180
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ3452/2020

Leave to appeal was refused because the plaintiff did not plead unjust enrichment or a claim for restitution or seek such relief at trial, the attempted late amendment to grounds was not properly made and would unfairly prejudice the defendants who lacked opportunity to plead defences; references in the judgment to unjust enrichment were treated as ancillary observations and do not create a properly pleaded basis for appeal.
11 Mar 2019

CHAN TSUI YAN v. SOCIAL WORKERS REGISTRATION BOARD

Citation

[2019] HKCA 279
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV123/2018

The DC provided adequate reasons on the substantive complaints and had evidence reasonably capable of supporting its findings; the Board had sufficient material and properly relied on the DC's Report so no further inquiry or additional reasons were required; factual challenges to weight of evidence are not permissible in judicial review absent lack of any supporting evidence; late or new grounds were rightly not entertained; appeal dismissed.
21 Feb 2019

LENGLER WERNER v. HONG KONG EXPRESS AIRWAYS LTD

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 420
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCLA29/2018

Leave to appeal was granted because the proposed amended grounds, filed early, were rephrased into a more focused form and raised arguable points of law concerning the construction and application of section 11 of the Employment Ordinance and alleged repudiatory breaches; amendment was permitted and the applicant was directed to submit a draft order for approval.
27 Jul 2016

HKSAR v. LAI KWOK HING

Citation

HKSAR v. LAI KWOK HING
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC319/2015

Leave to amend the perfected grounds and leave to appeal both conviction and sentence were granted because the court was satisfied that the amended perfected grounds contained reasonably arguable grounds of appeal against both conviction and sentence.
19 May 2015

PENNY’S BAY INVESTMENT CO LTD v. DIRECTOR OF LANDS

Citation

PENNY’S BAY INVESTMENT CO LTD v. DIRECTOR OF LANDS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP222/2015

The Court granted leave only where arguable points of law were identified (Applicant Ground 5; Respondent Grounds 3,6 and 10) and refused leave on other grounds because they were matters of valuation open to the specialist Lands Tribunal and did not disclose errors of law; amended grounds constituting a significant change must be first presented to the Tribunal for its view before the Court will entertain them; costs ordered as costs in the cause.
25 Mar 2013

TAN SHIH YING v. CITY UNIVERSITY OF HONG KONG

Citation

TAN SHIH YING v. CITY UNIVERSITY OF HONG KONG
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL36/2012

The respondent's initial factual misrepresentation did not justify depriving it of costs because the applicant, once aware of the true circumstances and while legally represented at the hearing, made a considered decision to continue and amend her grounds; therefore the order nisi for costs was made absolute and costs were awarded to the respondent.
21 Sept 2009

CHAMPION CITY INDUSTRIAL LTD v. HONG KONG SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY PARKS CORPORATION

Citation

CHAMPION CITY INDUSTRIAL LTD v. HONG KONG SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY PARKS CORPORATION
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL13/2009

The applications to amend Form 86A were refused because the applicants exhibited unjustified delay, failed to provide draft amended pleadings in a timely manner, and caused real prejudice to the respondent; consequently the reply evidence will remain but only as background and cannot be used to advance matters not pleaded in the Form 86A.
21 Sept 2009

WISE UNION INDUSTRIES LTD v. HONG KONG SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY PARKS CORPORATION

Citation

WISE UNION INDUSTRIES LTD v. HONG KONG SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY PARKS CORPORATION
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL12/2009

The court refused the applications to amend Form 86A because the applicants offered no satisfactory explanation for an almost four‑month delay, which caused real prejudice to the respondent and made the respondent's evidence unfocused; the reply evidence was to remain but only as background material and could not be used for unpleaded matters.
17 Jun 2004

E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND CO v. THE DIRECTOR OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY

Citation

E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND CO v. THE DIRECTOR OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL107/2003

The Registrar lawfully refused the s.23 amendment because s.23 is principally directed at preventing copying/piracy of foreign registered marks and there was no allegation or evidence of copying; the Registrar lawfully refused to admit the statutory declarations under r.27 because they were not strictly in reply, were self‑serving and had no evidential weight, and under r.28 because the evidence should have been filed earlier and r.28 is not a catch‑up provision; accordingly the Registrar did not act outside his powers and the judicial review applications fail.
26 May 1997

CONG VAN HA and Others v. THE DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION and Another

Citation

CONG VAN HA and Others v. THE DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION and Another
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP4157/1996

The court refused the proposed amendment and the admission of fresh evidence, held that on the unquestioned material the Director and the RSRB's conclusions were not Wednesbury unreasonable, and dismissed the judicial review for lack of merit and because of inordinate and unjustified delay; costs were ordered against applicants.