Read the full judgment text of HCCT000112/1997 on BabelCite. This 高等法院原訟法庭 judgment was delivered on 9 December 1998 before The Hon Mr Justice Findlay, in Chambers.
procedure — amendment of statement of claim — leave to amend refused due to delay, prejudice and conduct — injunction and damages claim — general versus special damages — interlocutory applications — trial adjournment — costs The plaintiff commenced proceedings alleging defendants interfered with its right of way by obstructing access to property adjacent to a civil engineering project. The claim originally sought only general damages and an injunction. After a delay of nearly 18 months, and close to trial, the plaintiff sought to amend the claim to add trespass, new factual bases including alleged special damages for loss of rental income or resale value, and to abandon the injunction. The court considered the plaintiff's delayed and misleading conduct, prejudice to defendants who had demobilised staff and fading witness memories, and the disruption caused to other court users. Applying principles from Ketteman v Hansel Properties, the court refused leave to amend the substantial changes, granted leave to minor cosmetic amendments, and adjourned the trial. Costs of applications to amend and adjourn were ordered against the plaintiff, with other costs reserved. The decision underscores the importance of timely amendments and the protection of fair trial rights against prejudicial delays.
Legal issues: Leave to Amend Statement of Claim · Discretion to Adjourn Trial
Outcome: Application for leave to amend substantial claims refused; minor amendments allowed; trial adjourned.