Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Late amendment

Legal area

Court

27 Oct 2016

THE LIQUIDATOR OF WING FAI CONSTRUCTION CO LTD (IN LIQUIDATION) v. YIP KWONG ROBERT AND OTHERS

Citation

THE LIQUIDATOR OF WING FAI CONSTRUCTION CO LTD (IN LIQUIDATION) v. YIP KWONG ROBERT AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCW735/2002

The application to amend was refused because it was made too late without an acceptable explanation, it failed to comply with prior interlocutory directions and deadlines, and allowing the amendment at trial would cause prejudice to the respondents and their experts by forcing mid-trial re-examination of documents and evidence.
28 Sept 2016

CHOW HOW YEEN MARGARET AND OTHERS v. WEX PHARMACEUTICALS INC. AND ANOTHER

Citation

CHOW HOW YEEN MARGARET AND OTHERS v. WEX PHARMACEUTICALS INC. AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA537/2013

The amendment to increase the quantum was refused because it was made too late and would cause real prejudice by introducing a substantial change to damages late in trial that would impede fair rebuttal and cross-examination; the strike-out application was dismissed because paragraph 46 was not plainly irrelevant and could be probative of alleged dishonest concealment, so it should stand until evidence is heard.
26 Sept 2008

RAJA AZHAR MEHMOOD v. MOHAMMAD AMIN

Citation

RAJA AZHAR MEHMOOD v. MOHAMMAD AMIN
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV353/2007

The judge properly exercised his discretion in refusing the last‑minute amendment because the proposed intoxication defence was materially different from prior pleadings, was raised three years after the accident with no adequate explanation for the delay, and would have caused substantial prejudice to the Plaintiffs requiring a likely adjournment; accordingly the refusal was upheld and the appeal dismissed.
26 Sept 2008

GHULAM MURTAZA v. MOHAMMAD AMIN

Citation

GHULAM MURTAZA v. MOHAMMAD AMIN
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV352/2007

The Court upheld the trial judge's discretionary refusal to allow a last‑minute amendment to plead intoxication because the amendment would have caused substantial prejudice to the plaintiffs, required a probable adjournment given the delay of over three years, and undermined efficient case management; absent a satisfactory explanation for the delay the judge did not err in exercising his discretion to refuse.
23 Mar 2006

TANG PAK HUNG v. TAM NGAK CHOU SIMON AND ANOTHER

Citation

TANG PAK HUNG v. TAM NGAK CHOU SIMON AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2768/2003

Amendment to the Defence was allowed (except paragraph 15F) because the matters sought to be raised had already been canvassed in evidence and correspondence and fairness required the issue to be formally pleaded, notwithstanding the lateness and the modern tendency to refuse late amendments.
23 Mar 2006

TANG PAK HUNG v. LONGWILL ENGINEERING LTD.

Citation

TANG PAK HUNG v. LONGWILL ENGINEERING LTD.
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA743/2004

The amendment to the Defence was allowed (except paragraph 15F) because the matters sought to be pleaded had been canvassed in evidence and correspondence, and no demonstrable prejudice to the plaintiff warranted refusal; fairness and proper ventilation of issues justified the late amendment.
30 Jan 1986

KONG KEE BROTHERS CONSTRUCTION CO LTD v. ATTORNEY GENERAL

Citation

KONG KEE BROTHERS CONSTRUCTION CO LTD v. ATTORNEY GENERAL
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP2712/1985

The amendment was allowed because it raised an exclusively legal point, would add minimal additional hearing time, and did not cause unacceptable prejudice to the Crown; allowing the amendment merely permits investigation of the new ground and does not indicate its validity.

Hong Kong Case Law

THE LIQUIDATOR OF WING FAI CONSTRUCTION CO LTD (IN LIQUIDATION) v. YIP KWONG ROBERT AND OTHERS

CHOW HOW YEEN MARGARET AND OTHERS v. WEX PHARMACEUTICALS INC. AND ANOTHER

RAJA AZHAR MEHMOOD v. MOHAMMAD AMIN

GHULAM MURTAZA v. MOHAMMAD AMIN

TANG PAK HUNG v. TAM NGAK CHOU SIMON AND ANOTHER

TANG PAK HUNG v. LONGWILL ENGINEERING LTD.

KONG KEE BROTHERS CONSTRUCTION CO LTD v. ATTORNEY GENERAL