Low Tuck Kwong and Others v. Dynasty Line Ltd.

Read the full judgment text of HCA 9505/1999 on BabelCite. This High Court CFI judgment was delivered on 17 July 2000.

1. This is an application for leave to re-amend the Defence and Counterclaim and having regard to the fact that this matter has been under my care and control for many, many months, including a large number of the directions hearings and PTRs, it seems to me to be wholly unreasonable for the Defendant to make this application at the first day of the trial.

Case No.HCA 9505/1999
Court
High Court CFI
Date17 Jul 2000
Judge
Case Document
100%Judiciary

HCA009505/1999

HCA9505/1999

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

ACTION NO.9505 OF 1999

-------------------------

BETWEEN
LOW TUCK KWONG 1st Plaintiff
JOHNNY TSAO YUE HWA 2nd Plaintiff
YAP HAN HOE 3rd Plaintiff
SWANNY SRI SUJANTY SETYONO 4th Plaintiff
LAU KANG THOW 5th Plaintiff
EVELYN ONG SUAT TAY 6th Plaintiff
LOW CHENG LUM 7th Plaintiff
AND
DYNASTY LINE LIMITED Defendant

---------------------

Coram: Hon Waung J in Court

Date of Hearing: 17 July 2000

Date of Judgment: 17 July 2000

----------------------

J U D G M E N T

----------------------

1. This is an application for leave to re-amend the Defence and Counterclaim and having regard to the fact that this matter has been under my care and control for many, many months, including a large number of the directions hearings and PTRs, it seems to me to be wholly unreasonable for the Defendant to make this application at the first day of the trial.

2. I have heard the parties on their submissions of the extent of the amendments which should be allowed. There is a large measure of agreement and there are a few items of disagreement on which I up hold the objections of the Plaintiffs. I would allow all the amendments in the Re-amended Defence and Counterclaim subject to the following :

3. In relation to paragraph 8(3)(III), I disallow the amendments under paragraphs (d), (e) and (f). In relation to (d) and (e), I would allow the amendments to be made in the form of the original pleading under paragraph 39(5) for (d), and 39(6) for (e). I disallow in total the (f) amendment. In relation to paragraph 8(3)(4), that is also disallowed, if that has not been abandoned by the Defendant.

4. I allow the amendment in relation to the quantum only on condition that the issue of quantum of damages under the Counterclaim raised on page 18 be tried, if necessary at some later date.

5. The costs of the application to re-amend be to the Plaintiffs including costs thrown away and consequential by the amendments.

(William Waung)
Judge of the Court of the First Instance,
High Court

Representation:

Mr A.T. Reyes, instructed by Messrs Lovells, for the Plaintiffs

Mr Nigel Kat, instructed by Messrs Wilkinson & Grist, for the Defendant

Other Judgments in This Case

Further hearings and rulings under HCA 9505/1999