Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Amendment of summons

Legal area

Court

4 Mar 2026

MEDFORD GARDEN LTD v. THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF SHUI KI INDUSTRIAL BUILDING

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 1389
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1666/2022

The judge refused the Plaintiff's applications because the remedial works had been completed, the Plaintiff had knowledge of the works' scope and delayed taking steps, there was no evidence of continuing seepage so further expert investigation would be speculative and impose unjustified costs, and therefore the January 2025 Summons was spent, amendment was refused and costs were awarded to the Defendant (summarily assessed at HK$80,000).
9 Apr 2019

CHEN LINGXIA v. 中國金谷國際信託有限責任公司 AND OTHERS

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 913
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2012/2018

The court held that no clarification of the costs order nisi was necessary because the existing order already covered the costs of the Summons, but varied the order nisi to direct that costs of and occasioned by the initial grant and the discharge of the Interim Injunctions (including JH's summons) be borne by Chen and paid to the defendants on an indemnity basis, taxed and paid forthwith; the court refused summary assessment and ordered that the costs of the defendants' variation applications (except the amendment application) be borne by Chen on an indemnity basis, while the costs of the am…
23 Nov 2018

LAW YIN POK BOSCO v. DR. CHAN YEE SHING also known as DR. CHAN YEE SHING ALVIN

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 2604
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCPI369/2010

The court exercised its discretion to refuse leave to amend because the proposed amendments were unnecessary or redundant given prior procedural orders and adjudications, the core legal issue (construction of Order 22 and Order 80 as to sanctioned payments for infants) could be determined on paper without amendment, and prior conduct demonstrated repetitive and unnecessary attempts to amend; accordingly the defendant's amendment summons was dismissed and costs ordered.
11 Aug 2017

WILLWIN DEVELOPMENT (ASIA) CO LTD AND ANOTHER v. WEI XING AND OTHERS

Citation

WILLWIN DEVELOPMENT (ASIA) CO LTD AND ANOTHER v. WEI XING AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA797/2012

The court held that limited discovery was necessary and proportionate for the account-taking ordered by the Judgment: production of specified SWT financial records for 1 April 2008 to 30 April 2010 was ordered (books, payment and cash vouchers, management accounts, profit and loss accounts, bank transaction statements and general ledgers for accounting years ending 31 March 2009, 31 March 2010 and 31 March 2011). The court refused a late application to amend the summons and refused discovery requests which sought to re-litigate issues determined by the Judgment. WW was ordered to state on aff…
15 May 2017

SNE ENGINEERING CO LTD v. CHIM KEE MACHINERY CO LTD

Citation

SNE ENGINEERING CO LTD v. CHIM KEE MACHINERY CO LTD
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV101/2016

Security for costs was ordered because the plaintiff remained impecunious with insufficient explanation for depletion of funds, there was a risk of difficulty enforcing costs, and the defendant was entitled to protect its position pending the appeal; $1,000,000 was an appropriate security sum to be paid into Court within 14 days, failing which the appeal would be dismissed; applications by the plaintiff to adduce further late affirmation and to strike out parts of the defendant's affirmation (and late amendments to its summons) were refused as unjustified, late and prejudicial to case managem…
24 Nov 2016

YIFUNG DEVELOPMENTS LTD v. LIU CHI KEUNG RICKY AND OTHERS

Citation

YIFUNG DEVELOPMENTS LTD v. LIU CHI KEUNG RICKY AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1341/2014

The court concluded that Linklaters and YDL deliberately failed to issue a summons within the prescribed time, reliance on a letter and commentary did not excuse the delay, and the unexplained delay caused prejudice; accordingly the application for extension of time to file the variation summons and the subsequent application to amend were dismissed as unjustified and abusive.
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

HCA678/2006

Where a defendant's affidavit denying possession of documents lacks particulars of searches or explanations and is therefore insufficient to meet the duty of honest disclosure under O 24 r 7 RHC, the court will order further affidavits and limited discovery; however documents sought solely to enable an election for an account enquiry (Items 7 and 8) will not be ordered pre- liability or absent appropriate pleadings. Accordingly the court ordered further affidavits and disclosure in respect of Items 1, 3(a) & (c), 4-6, refused Items 7 and 8, granted the production summons and allowed the amend…
2 Apr 2015

HKSAR v. HIP HING CONSTRUCTION COMPANY LTD t/a HIP HING NGO KEE JOINT VENTURE

Citation

HKSAR v. HIP HING CONSTRUCTION COMPANY LTD t/a HIP HING NGO KEE JOINT VENTURE
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA914/2009

The conviction was unsustainable because the amended summons failed to aver the commission and perpetrator of the predicate s6A offence such that the s13(1) proprietor charge was improperly formulated and disclosed no offence known to law in line with the Court of Final Appeal in Paul Y and Lucky Engineering; amendment or redrafting at this stage was inappropriate, therefore the appeal must be allowed and the conviction quashed.
7 Oct 2014

LEUNG WAN MING v. LIE MEY FONG

Citation

LEUNG WAN MING v. LIE MEY FONG
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1267/2011

The court allowed the amendment to the summons but treated it as an Order 45, r 6 application and adjourned argument to give the defendant a genuine last chance to file reply evidence; the court refused leave to file the additional expert report by Dr Eddie Lam due to lack of satisfactory explanation and impermissible expert shopping; the existing Joint Expert Report remains in place and parties must file a supplemental joint expert report highlighting changes, and detailed costs orders were made allocating costs between the parties.
19 Sept 2014

BANK OF CHINA (HONG KONG) LTD v. LEUNG SHIU KEE AND OTHERS

Citation

BANK OF CHINA (HONG KONG) LTD v. LEUNG SHIU KEE AND OTHERS
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ1208/2009

Leave to appeal out of time refused because the 5th defendant failed to show a reasonable prospect of success; plaintiff entitled to payment out of $400,000 paid into court and to $127,413.08 held by the Official Receiver; the 5th defendant's counterclaim was obviously unsustainable and was struck out; costs ordered against the 5th defendant in the sum of $30,000 (summary assessment).