Read the full judgment text of HCCT 4/2023 on BabelCite. This 高等法院原訟法庭 judgment was delivered on 27 February 2025 before Hon Anthony Chan J in Chambers.
Construction contract dispute — Application by Defendants to re-amend Amended Defence and Counterclaim to add new cause of action for breach of Main Contractor’s Management Obligation alleged to be undertaken by Plaintiff as Sub-Contractor. Plaintiff opposed on grounds of limitation period, no sustainable cause of action, and fictitious quantum. The court applied the three-stage test for amendment raising limitation issues, concluding that the new cause of action is prima facie time-barred as breaches began in August 2015, outside the six-year limitation period. The defence of abatement of price plea is recognized as permissible despite limitation. Continuing breach doctrine discussed; court deemed the issue fact-sensitive and inappropriate for interlocutory determination. The new cause of action found to arise from different facts than existing claims, thus not qualifying for amendment under limitation exceptions. Claim of deliberate concealment to extend limitation period rejected due to lack of evidence. The court emphasized principles favouring amendments unless bound to fail or causing prejudice; held amendment to plead abatement defence acceptable but refused to allow new cause of action absent proper particulars and foundation for loss. Application dismissed with costs to Plaintiff but Defendants may bring a new action or properly formulated further amendments. Legal principles from Limitation Ordinance Cap 347, case precedents including Shenzhen Futaihong, Ballinger v Mercer, and others on limitation, continuing breaches, and amendment rules applied.
Legal issues: Limitation period for new contractual claim · Applicability of continuing breaches doctrine · Whether new cause of action arises from same or substantially same facts as existing claims · Deliberate concealment under s.26 Limitation Ordinance · Amendment of pleadings principles
Outcome: Application to re-amend pleadings dismissed with costs to Plaintiff
Cited by 1 case · Cites 4 cases