16 Apr 2024
The Court found no arguable basis that the Applicant's claim was a liquidated debt; the claim arose from breach of contract and thus sounded in damages. Granting an adjournment would unduly prejudice other creditors by delaying the liquidation. Accordingly the adjournment application and the summons were dismissed.
6 Nov 2018
The proposed restitutionary claim for mistake arises out of substantially the same facts as the pleaded oral loan claim; therefore, permitting the amendment does not unjustly deprive the defendant of a reasonably arguable limitation defence and leave to amend should be granted; the approach of allowing amendments simply because limitation is triable (Extramoney approach) is rejected.
29 Aug 2016
The Court treated the summons as a renewed application for extension of time and refused the extension because the intended appeal was completely devoid of merit (including that new grounds were not properly pleaded below and lacked substance), and awarded costs to the plaintiffs.
6 Oct 2005
The court has jurisdiction to hear a costs order incident to a substantive appeal, but where the costs order was made after the original notice the appellants must file a fresh notice or amend promptly; on the facts there was no undue or significant prejudice to the respondent, so leave to amend the Notice of Appeal was properly granted.
20 Aug 2004
The court refused leave to amend because the proposed amendment would introduce a new primary issue of beneficial ownership that materially changed the focus of the trial, risked prejudice to the Plaintiffs (including the need for further evidence), and overlapped with prospective ancillary relief under the MPPO which should be determined in that forum; consequently the amendment was inappropriate at that late stage. The court adjourned the trial to allow the 1st Defendant to pursue ancillary relief under the MPPO so that both matters could be addressed together if necessary.
15 Nov 2002
Court exercised discretion to grant leave to amend despite delay because applicant had promptly challenged the original July 2000 decision and reasonably awaited the section 53 objection outcome, delay was largely attributable to legal representatives rather than the lay applicant, no real or substantial prejudice or detriment to good administration was shown, and the intended challenges were arguable; accordingly leave to amend was granted with directions and costs ordered to applicant.
16 Mar 1995
Respondents established their entitlement to security for costs and the Court granted the order in terms of the respondents' summons dated February 1995, made at the interlocutory stage and without prejudice to future hearings.
28 Sept 1988
The court refused the stay because granting it would place the plaintiffs at a substantial juridical disadvantage: the Indonesian tonnage limitation (Article 474) is uncertain and likely materially lower than the Hong Kong limitation; the contractual choice-of-law clause cannot override Hong Kong's statutory incorporation of the Hague-Visby Rules which nullifies clauses reducing carrier liability; on balance Hong Kong is the appropriate forum and justice requires refusal of the stay.