Tang Ying Loi v. Tang Ying Ip and Others

HCA 2487/2009

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

ACTION NO 2487 OF 2009

____________________

____________________

Before: Hon Chow J in Chambers

Date of Hearing: 27 October 2014

Date of Ruling: 27 October 2014

_____________

R U L I N G

_____________

1.At this late stage of the proceedings my primary concern is to ensure that the proposed amendments to the amended reply would not cause substantial prejudice to the defendants without being too technical as to whether certain allegations should be in the reply as opposed to in the statement of claim.

2.Insofar as paragraph 8A of the re-amended reply is concerned, it raises no new factual issue and is a response to paragraph 8A.1 of the re-amended defence and therefore should be permitted.

3.Insofar as paragraph 6A(d) of the re‑amended reply is concerned, it is not a response to paragraphs 8.3A of the re-amended defence.  Whether the plaintiff will be entitled to cross-examine the defendants on the withdrawal or transfer of HK$2.365 million-odd in June 2002, referred to in paragraph 6A(d) of the re-amended reply, is a matter which will have to be considered in the context of the cross-examination, if any, at the time.  That is a matter which I am not going to rule at this stage.

4.Paragraph 6B(i) of the re-amended reply can be regarded as a proper response to paragraphs 8A.4 and 9.2 of the re-amended defence.  While some of the information in paragraph 9.2 may have been disclosed previously in evidence, as a matter of pleadings they are new allegations.  I consider that the plaintiff is entitled to raise the point in paragraph 6B(i) of the proposed re-amended reply.

5.Lastly, the plaintiff is entitled to raise, and has in fact raised, the allegation in paragraph 6C of the re-amended reply, but the two distributions referred to in paragraph 6D are new allegations.  They have no direct bearing on the use of the HK$11 million as a loan or alleged loan to the 1st defendant.  Hence I will allow paragraph 6C, but not the words in square brackets, and I will not allow paragraph 6D.

(Discussion between court and counsel)

6.I shall grant leave to the 1st to 3rd defendants to file and serve the rejoinder on or before 31 October 2014. 

(Discussion between court and counsel)

7.I make an order that the costs be in the cause.

Mr Benjamin Chain, instructed by Pansy Leung Tang & Chua, for the plaintiff

Ms Janet Ho, instructed by Wong, Hui & Co, for the 1st to 3rd defendants