22 Jul 2016
Application refused because the proposed amended defence and counterclaim introduced new facts and assertions which would prejudice the plaintiff, permit further pleadings and evidence, and derail the trial; delay and the stage after setting down reinforced refusal despite change of solicitors.
26 Jan 2016
Leave granted for the plaintiff to amend the Statement of Claim because the proposed amendments merely articulate factual particulars already contained in witness statements, are necessary to inform the opponent of the case to be met at trial and to avoid exclusion of those matters at trial; therefore amendments fall within O.20 r.8(1A). Costs of the application are to the defendants (to be taxed if not agreed) and costs of the hearing awarded to the plaintiff assessed at HK$40,000 payable within 14 days; consequential timetabling orders made for filing, service, counsel's advice and further…
17 Feb 2006
Appeal dismissed because plaintiff failed to establish good grounds to vary the prior consent order: he did not demonstrate irreparable prejudice from loss of witnesses given failure to serve witness statements and absence of steps to obtain them; delay in the related defamation action was largely attributable to the plaintiff's late amendment applications and unsettled pleadings; substantial factual and evidential overlap justified the sequencing; and there was no cogent basis to require a different judge due to payment into court.
27 Sept 2005
Because the issues raised could not be satisfactorily determined on the face of the originating process, the court exercised its case management jurisdiction to order pleadings, discovery and directions for supplemental witness statements, and ordered the costs of the hearing to be in the cause.
23 Feb 2004
The court held that the fact of the low settlement alone (HK$78m from HK$496m) is insufficient as a particular to establish a breach of the contractual obligation to use all reasonable endeavours to maximize Gross Contract Income; accordingly the specific proposed paragraphs and counterclaim alleging that breach were disallowed while the rest of the revised defence amendments were permitted.
18 Mar 1987
Although there was undue delay in setting the action down, the defendant failed to show that the delay produced a substantial risk of being unable to have a fair trial or that it caused serious prejudice; furthermore the defendant had contributed to the delay by engaging in settlement negotiations and requesting the plaintiff defer action, so dismissal for want of prosecution was not justified.
6 Dec 1977
Given the application to consolidate the three actions and the subsequent timely application to set down Action No. 2208, the court held that, in the particular circumstances, that application operated notionally to set down the consolidated Actions Nos. 2209 and 2525 and therefore the Registrar was not required to strike them out under Rule 31(2).
6 Dec 1977
In the particular factual circumstances of these consolidated proceedings the court held that the plaintiff's timely application to consolidate, followed shortly by an application to set down Action No. 2208, operated as a notional application to set down the related Actions Nos. 2209 and 2525 so that the Registrar was not required to strike those actions from the Register; costs awarded to the plaintiff in specified actions accordingly.