Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Pleading amendment

Legal area

Court

30 Oct 2015

KAR MING ENGINEERING CO LTD v. PACIFIC MARBLE & GRANITE (HK) LTD

Citation

KAR MING ENGINEERING CO LTD v. PACIFIC MARBLE & GRANITE (HK) LTD
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ418/2013

On balance of probabilities the plaintiff proved the Original Works claim net of payments but failed to prove the full claimed variation sum due to lack of contemporaneous records and agreement; only HKD60,750 of variation works was established as payable. The defendant failed to prove defective workmanship causally attributable to the plaintiff or the quantum of remedial costs; the counterclaim was dismissed.
13 Feb 2014

JONATHAN LU AND OTHERS v. PAUL CHAN MO-PO AND ANOTHER

Citation

JONATHAN LU AND OTHERS v. PAUL CHAN MO-PO AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA370/2012

Amendment to plead facts about the Harvard Email (sub‑paragraphs (5A)(a)‑(d) and (g)) was allowed because the pleaded facts were largely incontrovertible and sufficient to raise an inference of a causative link for the jury on republication and damages; however particulars alleging malice (sub‑paragraphs (5A)(e) and (f)) were refused because the basic facts relied on were too tenuous and equally consistent with absence of malice and therefore insufficient as a matter of law to permit a jury to infer malice under the Telnikoff test; consequentially the defendants' strike out applications were…
12 Feb 2014

M.G.X. ASIA LTD AND ANOTHER v. CHINA WAY GLOBAL COMPANY LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

M.G.X. ASIA LTD AND ANOTHER v. CHINA WAY GLOBAL COMPANY LTD AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2001/2013

Application for interlocutory injunction dismissed because plaintiffs materially changed their pleaded case late (introducing joint authorship) without an amended pleading, causing prejudice to defendants who had no proper opportunity to answer; consequently court could not grant injunction though undertakings re trade marks were accepted and an early trial and directions were ordered.
22 Sept 2011

RAI NARAYAN PARSHAD v. CHIT HING CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING AND OTHERS

Citation

RAI NARAYAN PARSHAD v. CHIT HING CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCPI604/2008

Liability admitted; plaintiff entitled to damages but bound by pleaded statement of damages absent leave to amend; reasonable period to seek alternative employment after 9-month sick leave is 3 months; plaintiff's notional monthly earning capacity fixed at HKD 6,400.16; multiplier 11.5 applied; awards: PSLA HKD 500,000; pre-trial loss HKD 299,809.44; post-trial loss HKD 420,070.90; loss of earning capacity HKD 50,000; special damages HKD 10,000; set-off employees' compensation HKD 532,376; net judgment HKD 747,504.34; interest and costs ordered as specified.
31 Dec 2010

WORLDTRANS AIR SEA SERVICE LTD v. NNR GLOBAL LOGISTICS (HK) LTD

Citation

WORLDTRANS AIR SEA SERVICE LTD v. NNR GLOBAL LOGISTICS (HK) LTD
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ4122/2008

The court found on the balance of probabilities that an oral agreement existed with terms allocating daily minimum capacity on SQ857 (pivot weights: pallet 1,600kg, container 600kg) at agreed per‑kg rates and that the parties treated dead freight as a predetermined sum; those dead freight charges were liquidated damages enforceable as agreed, the 30 May 2007 correspondence did not terminate the agreement, and judgment was entered for the Plaintiff for HK$745,119.20 plus interest and costs.
17 Apr 2002

ORIENTAL PRESS GROUP LTD. v. NEXT MAGAZINE PUBLISHING LTD. AND OTHERS

Citation

ORIENTAL PRESS GROUP LTD. v. NEXT MAGAZINE PUBLISHING LTD. AND OTHERS
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV1006/2000

The Court held that on the proper construction the words complained of were not reasonably capable of bearing the pleaded natural or innuendo defamatory meanings save that a limited less injurious innuendo (that appointment was approved by a fugitive from justice) could stand if the extrinsic fact of flight were proved from earlier articles; the estoppel objection failed; Mr Yip could be a witness of extrinsic facts but could not be equated with an ordinary reader; and the judge did not abuse her discretion in ordering costs for the amendment.
29 Nov 2000

JINDAL EXPORTS LTD. v. WACO TRADING CO. LTD.

Citation

JINDAL EXPORTS LTD. v. WACO TRADING CO. LTD.
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA15404/1999

Summary judgment was refused because there were genuine triable issues of fact and law — notably entitlement to reject the goods (and thus total failure of consideration), whether a settlement discharged the bill, and whether the drawer could invoke rights as a holder in due course — which required resolution at trial; therefore unconditional leave to defend was granted.
15 Apr 1999

TONG NAI KAN v. CHEUNG KING FUNG FRANCIS

Citation

TONG NAI KAN v. CHEUNG KING FUNG FRANCIS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA8587/1998

The defendant's account raised triable issues of consideration and misrepresentation that were not 'practically moonshine' and therefore summary judgment was inappropriate; the pleading defect as to notice of dishonour could be cured by amendment, so the defendant must be granted unconditional leave to defend and the plaintiff leave to amend.
17 Jun 1998

YAACOV OZER v. KWAN SIU MAN JOSHUA

Citation

YAACOV OZER v. KWAN SIU MAN JOSHUA
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV150/1997

Conditional leave to appeal was granted because the appeal lies as of right and the appellant offered the required security; the Court declined to determine or order costs in respect of the leave application and left costs to the Court of Final Appeal under s.43; the application to vary the costs order nisi was refused because it would require re‑opening the Court's substantive finding on the open contract, a matter for the Court of Final Appeal.
24 Nov 1972

LEE MAN v. HO CHIU TSEUK

Citation

LEE MAN v. HO CHIU TSEUK
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA38/1972

The court found the second defendant to be the person in possession and not entitled to remain; the writ was amended under Order 20 rule 8 to direct the claim against the second defendant; the lease to Chiu Yat Nam with deposit and construction money was accepted as effective and the second defendant must deliver possession and pay mesne profits at $580 per month; the first defendant was dismissed from the suit and costs allocated accordingly.