Wealthy Victor Ltd and Another v. Ace Cosmos Finance Ltd
Read the full judgment text of HCA 1910/2007 on BabelCite. This High Court CFI judgment.
1. This is an application by the 1st and 2nd Plaintiffs to re-amend the writ and the statement of claim. Mr Ronny Wong SC, who makes the application, says these are minor amendments of a “tidying up” nature and he is surprised by the fact that Mr Daniel Fung SC is objecting. For his part, Mr Fung says that these are late amendments, made at the PTR and are not supported by an affidavit explaining the delay in making the application and he relies on something said by Ma CJHC (as he then was) in
Cited by 1 case · Cites 1 case
|
HCA 1910/2007 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE ACTION NO. 1910 OF 2007 ____________ BETWEEN
____________ Before: Deputy High Court Judge Carlson in Chambers Date of Hearing: 25 January 2011 Date of Ruling (Handed Down): 25 January 2011 ________________ R U L I N G ________________ 1.This is an application by the 1st and 2nd Plaintiffs to re-amend the writ and the statement of claim. Mr Ronny Wong SC, who makes the application, says these are minor amendments of a “tidying up” nature and he is surprised by the fact that Mr Daniel Fung SC is objecting. For his part, Mr Fung says that these are late amendments, made at the PTR and are not supported by an affidavit explaining the delay in making the application and he relies on something said by Ma CJHC (as he then was) in a case called Allan Chan v Susana Ho, CACV 393/2004, in which there had been no explanation provided for the delay. The Chief Judge said this:
2.Whilst what the Chief Judge was saying was intended to be of general application, the case that he had before him related to applications that were far more far reaching. 3.In this matter, whilst these amendments are being applied for late, they really are of a very minor nature and do no more than tidy up the pleading. I can see no prejudice in allowing them. The Plaintiffs’ case remains as it was before the re-amendment. I will therefore allow the application. There will be an order in terms of the summons with the usual order for costs in favour of the Defendant.
Ronny Wong SC and Vod Chan, instructed by Messrs Peter K S Chan & Co., for the 1st and 2nd Plaintiffs Daniel Fung SC and Gary Lam, instructed by Messrs Vincent T K Cheung, Yap & Co., for the Defendant | |||||||||||||||||
Cases cited in this judgment
Other judgments that cite this case