Ng Hin Chung and Another v. Mok Poon Kwong and Another
Read the full judgment text of HCA 60/2018 on BabelCite. This High Court CFI judgment was delivered on 26 April 2021.
1. This is a case in defamation arising out of building management matters. The plaintiffs have, by summons, sought leave to amend the Statement of Claim and to file and serve the second supplemental witness statement of the 1 st plaintiff. This summons was taken out after leave was granted to set down by the master and just before the appointment to fix date for trial.
Cited by 2 cases
|
HCA 60/2018 [2021] HKCFI 1470 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE ACTION NO 60 OF 2018 ____________
____________ Before: Hon Au-Yeung J in Chambers Date of Hearing: 26 April 2021 Date of Decision: 26 April 2021 _____________ D E C I S I O N _____________ 1.This is a case in defamation arising out of building management matters. The plaintiffs have, by summons, sought leave to amend the Statement of Claim and to file and serve the second supplemental witness statement of the 1st plaintiff. This summons was taken out after leave was granted to set down by the master and just before the appointment to fix date for trial. 2.In brief, the summons seeks to (1) remove the 2nd plaintiff as plaintiff and remove the 2nd defendant as defendant. This would leave the action between a personal plaintiff and a personal defendant. There is no objection from the defendants and the defendants should get costs on this matter. 3.The second part of the application is to amend the Statement of Claim and the second supplemental witness statement goes hand in hand with that. The plaintiffs frankly admit that these two parts of the application arose due to change of counsel. The supplemental witness statement needs to deal with matters arising out of the amendments and to answer some of the matters raised in the witness statements of the defendants. 4.I have considered the procedural history of this case. To allow the amendments really puts the timetabling questionnaire and listing questionnaire procedure into ridicule. This is because the plaintiffs’ solicitors have signed on the listing questionnaire, stating that their case was ready for setting down. There was no interlocutory application indicated by the parties at that time although the master did not specify a time by which parties must take out interlocutory matters. Accordingly, the master went forth to give directions for setting down. The summons of the plaintiffs put the fixing of trial dates on hold. This causes not only prejudice to the plaintiffs but also the defendants who have a counterclaim in defamation as well. 5.On the other hand, I have also taken into account the change in the parties. By that, I mean the corporate plaintiffs and defendants will drop out. As rightly pointed out by Mr Ng, counsel for the plaintiffs, the court’s main focus is the just resolution of dispute in accordance with the substantive rights of the parties. The court, in exercise of its case management powers, balances the interests of both sides. There will be no justice in retaining an unwilling plaintiff and waste everybody’s time over an outgoing defendant. 6.Arising out of the amendments would, of necessity, be a need to make adjustments to the witness statements already filed. It is better assistance to the trial judge to do the adjustments now than closer to the PTR. Counsel on both sides would need to properly chart their course ahead. 7.I have also taken into account the fact that trial dates are unlikely to be available within the next 12 months. P1 has readily accepted that his amendments would give rise to the change in pleadings and witness statements and has offered to pay costs. It is better, in my view, to clear up the position now. 8.I therefore exercise my discretion to allow the amendments and give the following directions:
(Discussion re costs of amendments and supplemental witness statements) 9.On costs arising out of the amendments and the witness statements, I believe the court should send a very clear message to litigants that they should treat timetabling questionnaires and listing questionnaires with the greatest caution. The court acts on those questionnaires. The other party also is entitled to rely on those questionnaires to chart his course. Where a party signs on a listing questionnaire to state that the case is ready for set down but subsequently changes its mind, it is only fair to the other party and in the light of the court’s indulgence to withhold the fixing of trials that costs should be borne by that party regardless of outcome of the trial. 10.I therefore direct that the costs of and occasioned by the 1st plaintiff’s amendments to the Statement of Claim and the application to the filing of supplemental witness statement be to the 1st defendant. For the avoidance of doubt, such costs shall include but is not limited to the filing of amendments to the defence and counterclaim, filing of consolidated witness statements and further witness statements in answer to the amendments regardless of the outcome of the trial. 11.There will be a certificate for counsel for today’s hearing.
Mr Lawrence K F Ng, instructed by King & Co, for the 1st and 2nd plaintiffs Mr Lewis Law, instructed by Leung, Tam & Wong, for the 1st and 2nd defendants | ||||||||||||||||||||
Other judgments that cite this case
Further hearings and rulings under HCA 60/2018