Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Voluntary particulars

Legal area

Court

13 Sept 2024

DU GUORONG v. BANK OF CHINA INTERNATIONAL LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 2499
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA467/2017

Although filing the VP without consent or leave was procedurally improper, most particulars corresponded to allegations in the RASOC and aided issue definition; accordingly retrospective leave to file the VP was granted but items that introduced new allegations or revived abandoned loan claims (items 6,8,22 and 24) were expunged; defendants permitted to file responsive witness evidence within 21 days and a costs order nisi made against the plaintiff for 25% of the defendants' costs.
15 Apr 2019

CHAN YING WAI v. SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE for and on behalf of COMMISSIONER OF CORRECTIONAL SERVICES Defendant

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 988
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCPI838/2015

The summons was dismissed because the draft particulars sought to introduce new, unpleaded matters at a late stage without satisfactory explanation; allowing them would cause real forensic and procedural prejudice (unavailable witnesses and records, need for additional preparation) and risk derailing imminent trial dates; there were no exceptional circumstances or evidential basis to warrant permitting the late additions and costs follow the event.
23 May 2016

ERIC EDWARD HOTUNG AND ANOTHER v. HO YUEN KI AND OTHERS

Citation

ERIC EDWARD HOTUNG AND ANOTHER v. HO YUEN KI AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA857/2011

The court granted leave to the 1st and 2nd defendants to file and serve the amended voluntary particulars in support of their laches defence, but excluded the last two sentences of paragraph 3 because the asserted deterioration in the 1st defendant's health was unsupported by medical evidence; the plaintiffs were permitted to adduce further evidence on witness availability and paragraph 2's list was treated as exhaustive absent a further application.
19 Jul 2011

CHRISTIAN EMIL TOGGENBURGER AND OTHERS v. LUU, HUNG VIET DERRICK AND OTHERS

Citation

CHRISTIAN EMIL TOGGENBURGER AND OTHERS v. LUU, HUNG VIET DERRICK AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA815/2009

The Court held that plaintiffs had established relevance, existence and sufficient indicia of possession for most requested document classes and that defendants' confidentiality objections could be addressed by redaction; the duty to disclose is independent and continuing so discovery was ordered for specified classes; in-camera HCMA proceedings were not shown to be related and therefore not discoverable; voluntary particulars were refused because they attempted to introduce new causes of action and should have been pursued by formal amendment rather than by voluntary particulars.
4 Oct 1984

GOBIND MOHAN AND ANOTHER v. BRIAN SHANE MCELNEY AND OTHERS

Citation

GOBIND MOHAN AND ANOTHER v. BRIAN SHANE MCELNEY AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA4611/1978

The proposed delivery of voluntary particulars and amendment introduced new facts specific to the bank so constituted a new cause of action; accordingly leave to amend was refused. In any event, even if discretionary, the amendment was refused for lateness, for being a new case sprung at trial, and for lacking any pleaded confidentiality or real prospect of success on undue influence/fiduciary grounds, with the appropriate limitation period being six years rather than twelve.

Hong Kong Case Law

DU GUORONG v. BANK OF CHINA INTERNATIONAL LTD AND ANOTHER

CHAN YING WAI v. SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE for and on behalf of COMMISSIONER OF CORRECTIONAL SERVICES Defendant

ERIC EDWARD HOTUNG AND ANOTHER v. HO YUEN KI AND OTHERS

CHRISTIAN EMIL TOGGENBURGER AND OTHERS v. LUU, HUNG VIET DERRICK AND OTHERS

GOBIND MOHAN AND ANOTHER v. BRIAN SHANE MCELNEY AND OTHERS