Read the full judgment text of HCCT 18/2007 on BabelCite. This 高等法院原訟法庭 judgment was delivered on 4 November 2009 before Hon Saunders J.
Construction and Arbitration Proceedings — Contract construction — Professional fees claim by structural engineer for aborted building project — Whether amended defence properly pleads material facts or includes irrelevant/inadmissible matters — Whether withdrawals of admissions in pleadings allowed without explanation — Plaintiff sued for unpaid fees and bonus based on contract dated 5 March 1991 with Carry Express. Defendant contended contract was part of deceptive scheme and project would not proceed, known by plaintiff, raising defence that contract was a sham and claim barred by delay and limitation. Defendant sought to amend original defence by substantially increasing its length and content, withdrawing admissions made. Court held pleadings must be succinct and only material facts be pleaded; irrelevant facts belong in witness statements. Withdrawal of admissions requires court leave with proper explanation under O 13A r 2(3). Leave to amend refused until appropriate redrafting provided; summons adjourned sine die. Costs reserved. Trial set for July 2010.
Legal issues: Relevance and sufficiency of pleadings in amended defence
Outcome: Refusal of leave to file amended defence until redrafted; summons for leave to amend adjourned sine die; costs reserved
Cites 1 case