Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Leave to amend defence

Legal area

Court

19 Sept 2023

CHAN CHUN CHUEN v. KAO, LEE & YIP (a firm)

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 2372
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA597/2015

It is not mandatory that the deputy High Court Judge Anson Wong SC or Coleman J hear the wasted costs application because each was involved only in a single interlocutory matter and neither conducted or tried the whole action; the summons may be listed before any judge and the statutory/practice direction requirements are to be applied with practical common sense rather than as an absolute bar.
7 Jan 2021

SKY MOTION HOLDINGS LTD v. CHINA CREATE CAPITAL LTD

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 54
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1151/2019

The court refused summary judgment because the defendant's 'no full payment' defence was believable and raised triable issues: material disputes existed about whether payments related to the Agreement or separate dealings and plaintiff failed to provide particulars or uncontested documentary proof to negate defendant's position; accordingly defendant was granted unconditional leave to defend and leave to amend the Defence, and the contested issues must be resolved at trial.
12 Jun 2017

LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY UMITOYS v. NICE FAME TRADING LTD

Citation

LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY UMITOYS v. NICE FAME TRADING LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2522/2014

Summary judgment was refused because the fraud exception to Order 14 applied and the defendant raised believable triable issues supported by contemporaneous documents; the interlocutory injunction was discharged because the defendant showed an arguable bona fide change of position and there was no solid evidence of real risk of asset dissipation; the plaintiff, being ordinarily resident outside jurisdiction and unable to show high probability of success, was ordered to provide security for costs in the sum assessed; leave to amend the defence was granted.
24 Mar 2017

GREATER CHINA CAPITAL INC. v. GBTIMES LTD

Citation

GREATER CHINA CAPITAL INC. v. GBTIMES LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1455/2015

The court held that the Statement of Claim was not defective and that, on the evidence before it, the defendant did not establish a real and triable defence of sham or other pleaded defences sufficient to defeat summary judgment; accordingly summary judgment on the liquidated claim for unpaid invoices (and interest) was appropriate and the appeal from the Master's orders was dismissed.
4 May 2015

DR CHAN HIN KEUNG HENRY v. APPLE DAILY LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

DR CHAN HIN KEUNG HENRY v. APPLE DAILY LTD AND OTHERS
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ1474/2013

Leave to appeal was granted because there is an arguable case with reasonable chances of success that the deputy judge's classification of the amendment application as late and consequent case management refusal could be disturbed on appeal; accordingly the summons for leave to appeal succeeds and costs are reserved to the appeal.
21 Aug 2014

TO PUI KUI v. NG KWOK PIU AND OTHERS

Citation

TO PUI KUI v. NG KWOK PIU AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP2466/2012

Leave to appeal against the trial judge's refusal to permit amendment of the defence was refused because the refusal was a case management decision not shown to be clearly wrong, the proposed amendments were fact-sensitive and likely to disrupt trial fairness and preparation, and most amendments were irrelevant to issues in the substantive appeal; by contrast, the plaintiff was granted leave to amend her notice of appeal/respondent's notice because counsel represented that the substance of the amended grounds was already in filed skeleton submissions and respondents could deal with them witho…
8 Feb 2013

LAI SIU WAI LOUIS AND ANOTHER v. LAM HUNG KWAN

Citation

LAI SIU WAI LOUIS AND ANOTHER v. LAM HUNG KWAN
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ557/2011

The court refused leave to withdraw the admissions because the defendant s explanation was not credible, was inconsistent with his subsequent conduct (offering payment by instalments after the alleged misconduct), and was unduly delayed; accordingly the admissions stood and judgment was entered for the plaintiffs for HK$300,000 with interest; limited re-amendments not affecting the admissions were permitted.
26 Oct 2010

LAM YUET YAU AND OTHERS v. 鄧慧妹

Citation

LAM YUET YAU AND OTHERS v. 鄧慧妹
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ323/2010

The court dismissed the Plaintiffs' summary judgment application because the Defendant has demonstrated a real and bona fide defence of adverse possession by adducing evidence of physical possession and animus possidendi sufficient to raise triable issues; accordingly the Defendant was granted leave to defend and to amend her Defence to file a Counterclaim.
26 Mar 2007

MAN LEE E & M ENGINEERING CO LTD v. THE JARDINE ENGINEERING CORPORATION LTD

Citation

MAN LEE E & M ENGINEERING CO LTD v. THE JARDINE ENGINEERING CORPORATION LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCT77/2006

Burrell J held that (1) the writ as to retention money was not premature because the defects liability period had expired and the client had signed off such that the final 5% became due; (2) no triable issue of an effective pay-when-paid clause was demonstrated for Order 14 purposes because Clauses 6(1) and 6(2) were crossed out with the plaintiff's chop and there was no contemporaneous objection or earlier pleading by the defendant; and (3) the valuation of variations remained a triable issue so conditional leave to defend Items 7-9 was granted on the defendant paying $500,000 into court, wi…
16 Mar 2007

SUPERIOR WAY INDUSTRIAL LTD v. EXCELLENT STEEL COIL CENTRE (HK) LTD

Citation

SUPERIOR WAY INDUSTRIAL LTD v. EXCELLENT STEEL COIL CENTRE (HK) LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1243/2006

Summary judgment refused and unconditional leave to defend granted because the Defendant's account was not inherently unbelievable, material factual disputes (including tracing of payments and PRC commercial practice) required trial resolution, and the Defendant, if believed, raised an arguable defence in law; therefore plaintiff failed to discharge threshold for summary judgment.