WEALTHY VICTOR LTD AND ANOTHER v. ACE COSMOS FINANCE LTD
HTML content
HCA 1910/2007
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
ACTION NO. 1910 OF 2007
____________
BETWEEN
| WEALTHY VICTOR LIMITED | 1st Plaintiff | |
| JOSE CHEONG VAI CHI alias | 2nd Plaintiff | |
| CHEUNG KWOK CHI | ||
| and | ||
| ACE COSMOS FINANCE LIMITED | Defendant | |
____________
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:
“… where an indulgence is sought from the Court, it would be a rare case indeed that this would be given, even on terms as to costs, without a satisfactory explanation being given to justify the grant of the indulgence. The fact that this represents in the present case the first time that an indulgence had been sought by the Defendant is neither here nor there.”
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.
| (Ian Carlson) Deputy High Court Judge |
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