Skyforce Engineering & Management Co. Ltd. v. Wan Chung Construction Co. Ltd.
Read the full judgment text of HCCT45/99 on BabelCite. This 高等法院原訟法庭 judgment was delivered on 9 June 1999 before The Hon. Mr. Justice Sakhrani.
Civil procedure — specific discovery application — prematurity — pleadings not closed — amended statement of claim and defence — construction and arbitration list. The Plaintiff filed an amended statement of claim on 4 June 1999 and sought specific discovery before the Defendant’s amended defence and counterclaim were served. The Court found the application premature as the issues to be raised had not been finalized. The Plaintiff also brought an O.14 summons for final judgment for a specified sum. The Court dismissed the specific discovery application and ordered costs to the Defendant. The amended pleadings must be complete before such discovery applications are entertained.
Legal issues: Prematurity of specific discovery application
Outcome: Application for specific discovery dismissed as premature
|
HCCT000045/1999 HCCT45/99 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE CONSTRUCTION AND ARBITRATION LIST NO. 45 OF 1999 ____________
____________ Coram: The Hon. Mr. Justice Sakhrani in Chambers Date of Hearing: 9 June 1999 Date of Judgment: 9 June 1999 ______________ J U D G M E N T ______________ 1. This is an application by the Plaintiff for specific discovery by summons dated 1st June 1999. I am of the view that this application has been made prematurely. The Amended Statement of Claim was only amended on 4th June 1999 pursuant to an order of Findlay J. on 31st May 1999. The Defendant was given 28 days to file and serve an Amended Defence and Counterclaim. That time has not yet expired. Pleadings have not closed. It is premature at this stage to seek specific discovery of documents without knowing what issues are going to be raised by the amendment. I am told by counsel for the Defendant that there will be substantial amendments to the Defence and Counterclaim. The Plaintiff should wait until pleadings are closed before launching their application for specific discovery. 2. Further, the Plaintiff has issued an O. 14 summons seeking final judgment for the specific amount claimed in the Amended Statement of Claim. It is for the specific sum of $12,982,667.93, interest and costs as claimed in the Amended Statement of Claim. If the Plaintiff succeeds on the O. 14 application and obtains judgment as sought, that is an end to the Plaintiff's claim for the said specific sum claimed in the Amended Statement of Claim. The Amended Statement of Claim in its present form does not seek to claim any further sums of money whether specified or unspecified. 3. In my judgment, the application has been made prematurely and should be dismissed. Costs of the application to the Defendant in any event.
Representation: Mr. Anthony Leung of M/s Siao, Wen & Leung for Plaintiff Mr. Ronald Tang instructed by M/s Lee Chan Cheng for Defendant |