Read the full judgment text of HCCT 4/2012 on BabelCite. This 高等法院原訟法庭 judgment was delivered on 30 September 2014 before Hon Au J in Chambers.
Court of First Instance — construction and arbitration proceedings — leave to appeal — champerty and maintenance — access to justice exception — equitable assignment and locus standi — time bar of claims under Subcontracts A and B — relation-back doctrine under Limitation Ordinance (Cap 347) s 35(1) — amendment of claims with leave or consent — counterclaim to counterclaim under s 35(3) and s 35(4) — procedural law. The defendant sought leave to appeal a decision refusing to strike out the plaintiff's claim based on alleged unlawful champerty under the Assignment, the plaintiff's locus to sue without joinder of True Light, and time-bar defences. The court rejected the defendant's grounds on the access to justice exception, holding no reasonable prospect of success to overturn. It affirmed plaintiff's equitable interest and locus standi with joinder of True Light to avoid double liability. The court held that claims under Subcontract A are not time-barred and that the doctrine of relation-back applies to amendments consenting to include Subcontract B claims preventing strike out on limitation grounds. The defendant’s cited authorities were distinguished as involving different procedural contexts. Further, the counterclaim to counterclaim argument under s 35(3) LO was held academic given the finding on the amendments. The court refused leave to appeal and ordered costs to plaintiff to be taxed if not agreed.
Legal issues: Access to justice exception under champerty and maintenance law · Plaintiff’s locus to sue without joinder of True Light · Time-barred status of Subcontract A claims · Time bar under Subcontract B and relation-back doctrine · Counterclaim to counterclaim under s 35(3) LO
Outcome: Refusal to grant leave to appeal on all grounds
Cites 1 case