Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Amendment of process

Legal area

Court

9 Dec 2019

CONNAUGHT WEST LTD v. GLOBAL FIDUCIARY SOLUTIONS LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 2934
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA525/2017

The court allowed the defendants' Amendment Summons and held that the defendants must bear the costs of and occasioned by the amendments (except costs covered by other orders); the plaintiff, having unsuccessfully resisted the amendment and having taken out an unnecessary Strike Out Summons, must bear the costs of resisting the Amendment Summons and the costs of the Strike Out Summons; no summary assessment of costs should be conducted and all costs are to be taxed if not agreed.
29 Aug 2017

GLORY SKY FINANCE LTD v. CHEN JIANHUA AND ANOTHER

Citation

GLORY SKY FINANCE LTD v. CHEN JIANHUA AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP2482/2014

The Court had no jurisdiction to set aside a perfected order of Master Lo and dismissed that application; however the Court granted leave to amend and exercised its discretion under Order 2 to grant relief from the sanction, permitting the plaintiff to serve its witness statement out of time because the debarment consequence was disproportionate; the Court refused to order security/payment into court under Order 2 r.3 as unjustified on the facts and dismissed the defendants' summons; costs ordered as specified.
15 Apr 2016

CYBERWORKS AUDIO VIDEO TECHNOLOGY LTD (in Compulsory Liquidation) v. SILVER KENT TECHNOLOGY LTD

Citation

CYBERWORKS AUDIO VIDEO TECHNOLOGY LTD (in Compulsory Liquidation) v. SILVER KENT TECHNOLOGY LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2780/2006

The court held that defendants' bare assertions of non-possession were insufficient as to Items 1, 3(a)&(c), 4-6 because deponents had not described searches or enquiries made; accordingly defendants were ordered to file affidavits within the time fixed stating whether those documents existed or had been in their possession and what became of them. Items 7 and 8 were disallowed because an inquiry into accounts is premature absent a finding of liability and the pleadings did not support discovery for that purpose. The Production Summons and the Amendment Summons were allowed; costs were apport…
15 Apr 2016

CYBERWORKS AUDIO VIDEO TECHNOLOGY LTD (in Compulsory Liquidation) v. MEI AH (HK) CO LTD

Citation

CYBERWORKS AUDIO VIDEO TECHNOLOGY LTD (in Compulsory Liquidation) v. MEI AH (HK) CO LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA677/2006

The court found defendants' affidavits inadequate insofar as the deponents failed to disclose what searches or enquiries had been made and thus did not satisfy O 24 r 7 RHC; accordingly the court ordered further affidavit disclosure concerning Items 1, 3(a)&(c), 4-6 within the time ordered but refused discovery/production for Items 7 and 8 because an account/enquiry is premature before liability is established. The Amendment Summons was allowed and the Production Summons was granted; costs were apportioned as agreed and assessed.
14 Jan 2014

QMY v. GSS

Citation

QMY v. GSS
Court

Family Court
Case number

FCMP147/2012

Leave to appeal refused because the respondent failed to demonstrate any reasonable prospect of success: the District Court properly construed the GMO as having its jurisdictional threshold measured against the parties not the children, s26 removes domicile as a territorial bar to jurisdiction, the judge correctly limited the forum comparison to the court specified in the summons (Siming) and properly exercised discretion on forum non conveniens; amendment to add Guangzhou would be impermissible at that stage; costs to follow the event.
25 Oct 2004

WAI YIP ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING CO LTD v. CHEVALIER (ENVIROTECH) LTD

Citation

WAI YIP ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING CO LTD v. CHEVALIER (ENVIROTECH) LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCT47/2004

The e-mail of 29 April 2004, taken in context, constituted a clear admission by the defendant that the plaintiff was entitled to HK$3,059,342.43 under the three contracts; accordingly there was no genuine dispute to refer to arbitration under Cap.341 s.6, the defendant's stay was refused, and final judgment was entered for that sum with interest from the judgment date.
3 May 1996

WINSTON CAMERA AND RADIO CO. LTD. v. VEART DESIGN LTD.

Citation

WINSTON CAMERA AND RADIO CO. LTD. v. VEART DESIGN LTD.
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA11595/1995

The part of the default judgment awarding $1,508,812.00 was irregular because it was not a liquidated demand; the defendant's application to set aside that irregular part was timely and not waived under Order 2 r. 2(1); furthermore the defendant's factual averments could well be established such that its defence to the remaining claim for damages has a real prospect of success; accordingly the Registrar's orders refusing amendment and refusing to set aside the default judgment were set aside and the default judgment of 27 December 1995 was set aside.
6 Oct 1994

JETEX HVAC EQUIPMENTS LTD. v. COMMISSIONER FOR LABOUR AND ANOTHER

Citation

JETEX HVAC EQUIPMENTS LTD. v. COMMISSIONER FOR LABOUR AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV114/1994

The prosecution commenced when the information was laid by the Labour Department officer; in substance that constituted a prosecution brought in the name of the Commissioner for Labour because officers act under the Commissioner's direction (Carltona principle); the absence of the Commissioner's literal name on the information or the summons was not fatal and did not render the information a nullity; the magistrate's purported amendment of the summons was a nullity but the High Court's broader prohibition was improperly granted and is discharged, with the information restored to the magistrat…