The China State Bank Ltd. v. Wong King Sing and Others
Read the full judgment text of HCMP 3350/1998 on BabelCite. This High Court CFI judgment was delivered on 11 October 1999.
1. This is an appeal against the decision of Master Jones who refused the Plaintiff's application to have part of the Defence of the second named 2nd Defendant struck out. The Summons before the Master did not identify what part of the Defence the Plaintiff wanted struck out. The Master did however see in the pleading an inconsistency between paragraph 8 and paragraph 16 (iii) so he gave leave to the Defendant to amend his Defence by striking out the last four words of §16(iii). The Notice of Ap
Cites 1 case
|
HCMP003350/1998 HCMP 3350/1998 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 3350 OF 1998 ______________
______________ Coram: The Hon. Mr. Justice Seagroatt in Chambers Date of Hearing: 7 October 1999 Date of Handing Down Reasons for Decision: 11 October 1999 _______________ J U D G M E N T _______________ 1. This is an appeal against the decision of Master Jones who refused the Plaintiff's application to have part of the Defence of the second named 2nd Defendant struck out. The Summons before the Master did not identify what part of the Defence the Plaintiff wanted struck out. The Master did however see in the pleading an inconsistency between paragraph 8 and paragraph 16 (iii) so he gave leave to the Defendant to amend his Defence by striking out the last four words of §16(iii). The Notice of Appeal simply repeats the original application and still does not identify the alleged offending part of the Defence. There is no appeal against the leave to amend. 2. I therefore asked Mr. Justin Wang who appears for the appellant Plaintiff to identify the part of the Defence which he wanted struck out. He referred to paragraphs 20 and 21. Paragraph 21 is easily dealt with. It is no more than an otiose and archaic bit of pleading (the 'seriatim traverse') which pleaders of Defences would do well to avoid in any event. Paragraph 20 is a denial of liability "to the Plaintiff as claimed or at all". The Defence pleads duress, undue influence, misrepresentation and fraud though not all in explicit terms. This paragraph is merely a composite denial of the Plaintiff's allegations as they presently exist or may exist at some future stage (i.e. if the Plaintiff amends its claim) I cannot see any logic in the Plaintiff's action. 3. Mr. Wang went on to explain that what the Plaintiff was trying to do was obtain an order for possession of the second property against the second named 2nd Defendant on the basis that since that Defendant had given no value or consideration for it (it is in the name of the second Defendants jointly) he has no legal interest. 4. Whatever issues the Plaintiff seeks to establish, and they are by no means clear from this appeal, it has no sensible or logical ground in this appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed with an order that the Plaintiff pay the Defendants costs in any event.
Representation: Mr. Justin Wang instructed by Messrs. Wat & Co. for the Plaintiff. Mr. Lam Shun Chiu instructed by Messrs. Wong Fung & Co. for the second named 2nd Defendant. |
Cases cited in this judgment
Further hearings and rulings under HCMP 3350/1998