Read the full judgment text of HCCT 1/98 on BabelCite. This 高等法院原訟法庭 judgment was delivered on 24 January 2000 before Hon. Yuen, J. in Chambers.
Procedure — Dismissal for want of prosecution — Delay — Whether delay in prosecution inordinate and inexcusable — Whether delay caused additional prejudice — Jurisdiction to disallow counsel for breach of Code of Conduct — Leave to amend Statement of Claim — Contract interpretation — Litigation between scaffolding subcontractor and building contractor over unpaid sums. The Plaintiff, a scaffolding contractor, commenced work under a written agreement based on a quotation. Following disputes on contract sums, particularly regarding lump sum versus re-measurement basis, the Plaintiff issued proceedings in 1997. Defendant applied to dismiss for want of prosecution due to an 11-month delay in prosecution post-Order 14 judgment. The court found the delay inordinate and inexcusable but held Defendant failed to prove the delay caused additional prejudice beyond the usual inconvenience and disadvantage of litigation delay. Defendant's application to dismiss was refused. Defendant also sought to disallow a barrister for the Plaintiff allegedly breaching the Bar Code; the court held it lacked jurisdiction to make such order and noted the Bar Council had already censured the barrister who was no longer acting. Plaintiff’s application to amend the Statement of Claim to change its contractual stance on price calculations was allowed, as no new claims or sums were introduced and no undue prejudice was demonstrated. Costs orders reflected the outcomes of the respective applications.
Legal issues: Application to dismiss action for want of prosecution · Application to disallow a barrister from acting due to conflict of interest · Application for leave to amend Statement of Claim
Outcome: Defendant’s application to dismiss action for want of prosecution dismissed; Defendant’s application to disallow barrister dismissed; Plaintiff granted leave to amend Statement of Claim