Read the full judgment text of HCCT 137 OF 1998 on BabelCite. This 高等法院原訟法庭 judgment was delivered on 1 December 1999 before Hon Mr Justice Burrell.
Construction contract dispute involving two related proceedings between the same parties with reversed roles; the defendant sought to include a set-off in its defence for damages it might be awarded in a separate, first-filed action. The court considered whether such a set-off, for unliquidated and contingent damages, was appropriate and necessary. It held that the set-off was an unnecessary accounting device and inappropriate for claiming unliquidated sums pending judgment in the other action. Although the court recognized the desirability of dealing with related quantum issues together through consolidation or sequential hearing under O.4, r.9, no such application was before it. The summons to strike out the relevant paragraphs of the defence and counterclaim was granted and leave to amend refused. Costs were awarded to the plaintiff. The court encouraged proper case management to avoid piecemeal litigation but prioritized the procedural correctness of pleadings and timely progress of the first action approaching trial.
Legal issues: Appropriateness of set-off for unliquidated damages
Outcome: Court struck out paragraphs 12-17 of the Defence and Counterclaim and refused leave to amend those paragraphs; costs awarded to the Plaintiff on both summons.