Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Amendment of originating summons

Legal area

Court

9 Jul 2024

PAN OCEAN CONTAINER SUPPLIERS CO LTD v. SPINNAKER EQUIPMENT SERVICES INC

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 1753
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCT9/2023

Communications in the arbitration were validly communicated under HKIAC Rules Article 3 to the last known/held‑out contact details (PO address, business card fax, Qin email) and were therefore deemed received; plaintiff failed to adduce sufficient credible evidence to rebut the presumption of receipt; the expedited procedure remained appropriate and the Tribunal acted within its procedural discretion in seeking further submissions and a short extension to decide the issues; the Non‑Delivery Claim fell within the scope of the arbitration; amendment was unjustified and opportunistic; accordingl…
19 Mar 2024

RE CHANGJIANG FUTURES (HK) LTD

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 832
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP318/2024

The court found the applicant holds the unclaimed cash on trust (established by contract clause 7.1), was shown to have made reasonable and continuous efforts to contact clients, and it was a proper exercise of discretion under s62 to permit payment of the funds into court; leave to amend and to advertise under Order 92 r4 were granted and the applicant will be discharged from liability upon compliance with the court's directions.
1 Feb 2024

RE TANG HOI CHUN

Citation

[2024] HKDC 143
Court

District Court
Case number

DCMP4512/2023

The court exercised its inherent jurisdiction and applied s.17 LRO to conclude the charging orders had ceased to have effect due to non-re-registration and potential time-bar to enforcement; given lack of opposition and good cause shown, the registrations were vacated and the originating summons was permissibly amended.
31 Oct 2023

FAN YIN WA v. LEUNG MEI YEE

Citation

[2023] HKDC 1577
Court

District Court
Case number

DCMP2181/2023

Because the defendant had withdrawn the deposits and closed the account, the plaintiff could not establish a proprietary interest necessary for a constructive trust; however the defendant was enriched at the plaintiff's expense without defence, so the court awarded a personal judgment for HK$180,000 plus interest, granted leave to amend the originating summons and dispensed further service.
29 Aug 2023

HUA SHE ASSET MANAGEMENT (SHANGHAI) COMPANY LTD v. GAO YAN AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 2229
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP941/2023

The injunction and amendment applications were dismissed because Hua She failed to show a serious question to be tried or meet the higher abuse‑of‑process threshold for restraining a bankruptcy petition; its fraud allegations were insufficiently particularised and unsupported by cogent evidence; Hua She lacked locus to seek the reliefs in these proceedings; and the balance of convenience favoured refusal; indemnity costs were awarded due to unarguable fraud allegations and improper allegations against a solicitor.
31 Mar 2022

RE MUFG SECURITIES ASIA LTD

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 948
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP83/2022

The Court was satisfied on the evidence that the assets in the Schedule are held by the applicant as trustee and that the applicant made reasonable efforts to contact the beneficiaries; it is not practicable to obtain physical certificates for certain Non‑Hong Kong stocks; accordingly the court granted leave to amend the originating summons and Schedule and authorised, subject to the applicant's undertakings, payment of cash into court with interest, deposit of available share certificates, and disposal of shares that cannot be physically produced with proceeds paid into court, together with…
23 Mar 2021

TSANG CHOI NGUN (suing as one of the executors and trustees of the estate of WONG WAI FONG, deceased) v. WONG WAN CHI ANITA

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 777
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP223/2020

The grant of probate was revoked and the Defendant removed as executrix because the Defendant obstructed administration, claimed to have destroyed the grant, refused to cooperate and became unresponsive, creating a supervening defect that justified revocation rather than mere removal; a fresh grant to the Plaintiff as sole executrix was ordered to avoid further delay, and costs were awarded to the Plaintiff on an indemnity basis in the sum of HKD 150,000, with the Plaintiff's own costs to be paid from the estate.
14 Feb 2014

SZE CHING LOK AND OTHERS v. CHINA RESOURCES POWER HOLDINGS CO LTD

Citation

SZE CHING LOK AND OTHERS v. CHINA RESOURCES POWER HOLDINGS CO LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1655/2013

The amendment application was refused because the applicants offered no credible explanation for reversing their prior unequivocal stance, and permitting substantial amendments after securing part‑heard dates would unfairly waste the court's limited listing resources; however, unconditional leave to withdraw was granted because the court had not adjudicated the substantive merits and it would be unfair to bar the applicants from re‑filing those complaints in fresh proceedings.
27 Apr 2012

CHOW SHING KEE INVESTMENT CO LTD v. THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF MALAHON APARTMENT AND OTHERS

Citation

CHOW SHING KEE INVESTMENT CO LTD v. THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF MALAHON APARTMENT AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1729/2011

The court held that the originating summons and Order 52 statement were deficient as to the individual management committee members because they failed to particularise the specific steps each member ought to have taken; accordingly there is no case to answer and leave to amend is refused as futile, whereas the 1st Defendant (the Incorporated Owners), who was directly bound by the injunction, has a case to answer and proceedings against it must continue.
26 Oct 2010

WOON LEE CONSTRUCTION CO., LTD v. HOLYROOD LTD

Citation

WOON LEE CONSTRUCTION CO., LTD v. HOLYROOD LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCT43/2010

The amendment adding an ex turpi causa ground was refused because it amounted to an application to extend time without any explanation or exceptional circumstances; the proposed illegality argument was unpleaded, irrelevant to the contract dispute and legally hopeless under the modern test in Stone & Rolls; accordingly leave to appeal was refused and the arbitrator's construction of the contract was not shown to be obviously wrong.