Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Amendments to pleadings

Legal area

Court

15 Aug 2025

BANK OF QINGDAO CO., LTD v. OOO SECURITIES (HK) GROUP LTD (formerly known as ORIENTIERT XYZ SECURITIES LTD)

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 3503
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1127/2022

The Deputy Judge found no real prospect of success on the proposed grounds of appeal because the construction of the Unless Order was correctly reached by reference to syntax, context and court practice; discretionary allowances of the Everglory and Clause 3.2 Amendments were reasonable, not bound to fail and raised triable issues; accordingly leave to appeal was refused and the summons dismissed, with costs awarded to BOQ.
15 Aug 2025

OOO SECURITIES (HK) GROUP LTD (formerly known as ORIENTIERT XYZ SECURITIES LTD) v. BANK OF QINGDAO CO., LTD

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 3503
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1141/2022

The judge found no real prospect of success on any pleaded ground of appeal: the Unless Order was correctly construed in context; relief against sanction was contingent on Ground 1 and therefore not sustainable; the Everglory Amendments are sufficiently clear in context and raise triable issues; the Clause 3.2 Amendments are permissible notwithstanding likely nominal damages; and the summons was dismissed with costs assessed at HK$380,000 but not on an indemnity basis.
26 Jun 2025

UNITED HARVEST INDUSTRIES LTD v. CHING MAN CHUN LOUIS AND OTHERS

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 2773
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA159/2022

The judge found there was a material change of circumstances (joining of the 3rd and 4th defendants, significant re-amendment alleging a new investment framework, and a substantial summary judgment application) which generated additional costs that could not reasonably have been anticipated when the earlier security was ordered; accordingly further security limited to costs referable to those changed circumstances was justified and HK$600,000 was fair and proportionate, so the master's dismissal was set aside and the appeal allowed.
18 Jul 2016

SHENZHEN FUTAIHONG PRECISION INDUSTRY CO., LTD AND OTHERS v. BYD CO LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

SHENZHEN FUTAIHONG PRECISION INDUSTRY CO., LTD AND OTHERS v. BYD CO LTD AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2114/2007

Court granted leave to amend because the proposed amendments did not introduce new causes of action but added further instances and particulars of the same four pleaded causes (breach of confidence, inducing breach of duties, conspiracy, dishonest assistance); alternatively, even if new causes were introduced they arose from the same or substantially the same facts; alleged delay and prejudice were insufficient to warrant refusal given the scale of discovery and lack of clear irremediable prejudice or demonstrable inability to investigate.
13 Feb 2014

TULSIANI RAMESH JHAMANDAS v. LALWANI PREM KHEMCHAND

Citation

TULSIANI RAMESH JHAMANDAS v. LALWANI PREM KHEMCHAND
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA261/2012

The court exercised its discretion to allow the defendant to amend the Defence and Counterclaim and to serve a supplemental witness statement subject to time-limited conditions and protective caveats because, although the delay was not justified, the plaintiff would not be substantially prejudiced and there was adequate time before trial for the plaintiff to answer the new material.
11 Jul 2005

LO KAI BUN v. PONG MAN YI AND OTHERS

Citation

LO KAI BUN v. PONG MAN YI AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA4700/2002

The judge held he was functus officio with respect to the earlier interlocutory ruling and therefore could not properly recall or revisit that part of the ruling; accordingly the earlier order requiring particulars was upheld and the application to re-open that issue was dismissed.
12 Feb 2004

THE WORLD FOOD FAIR LTD AND ANOTHER v. HONG KONG ISLAND DEVELOPMENT LTD

Citation

THE WORLD FOOD FAIR LTD AND ANOTHER v. HONG KONG ISLAND DEVELOPMENT LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA4602/2000

Costs follow the event. Although plaintiffs recovered the deposit, they were resoundingly unsuccessful on the principal claim for a binding lease; the defendants' position on the deposit was not improper or unreasonable and did not materially increase the cost or length of proceedings, therefore plaintiffs must pay defendants' costs of the claim; plaintiffs recover costs of their failed counterclaim; counterclaim time limited to 2 hours; costs of amendments to be borne by the party making the amendment; security for costs granted to defendants.
2 Dec 1988

FUNG KAI LOI v. FUNG TAI YIU AND OTHERS

Citation

FUNG KAI LOI v. FUNG TAI YIU AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1350/1981

The court refused the proposed further amendments (paragraphs 6(c)(ii) and 6(d)) because they were inadequately particularised, legally incoherent with pleaded adverse possession, and would cause unfair prejudice and delay given their lateness; however, the consent dismissal order left the Counterclaim 'unaffected', so the plaintiff was not estopped from defending the Counterclaim and the defendants' application for summary judgment was dismissed.