Read the full judgment text of HCCT 63/2022 on BabelCite. This 高等法院原訟法庭 judgment was delivered on 15 June 2023 before Hon Mimmie Chan J.
Civil procedure — Order 16 third party procedure — Application for leave to issue third party notice after defence filed — Mandatory affidavit requirements under Order 16 rule 2(2) — Failure to provide necessary particulars of nature of claim, stage of proceedings, and connection to main action — Leave refused. Pleadings — Defence and Counterclaim including unrelated claims against third party — Striking out under Order 18 rule 19 for no reasonable cause of action, frivolousness, and prejudice to fair trial. Plaintiff GOLDEN LEAP CONSTRUCTION COMPANY LIMITED sued Defendant HARAPLAZA CONSTRUCTION LIMITED for overpayment/damages for works on YL Project; Defendant denied contractual relationship and counterclaimed against third party PROGRESSIVE BUILDING AND FOUNDATION COMPANY LIMITED on unrelated contract and project (TC Project). Defendant issued Third Party Notice without Court leave and without affidavit particulars; Plaintiff opposed leave and sought strike out of parts of Defence and Counterclaim. Court held Defendant’s Leave Summons non-compliant and dismissed it, refusing retrospective leave. Court struck out irrelevant Defence and Counterclaim parts as having no reasonable cause of action and being prejudicial. Orders made for Defendant to pay costs to Plaintiff with counsel certificate.
Legal issues: Whether leave should be granted under Order 16 to issue a third party notice · Whether designated parts of the Defence and Counterclaim should be struck out
Outcome: Defendant’s application for leave to serve Third Party Notice refused; designated parts of Defence and Counterclaim struck out; costs awarded to Plaintiff.
Cites 1 case