UNITED KESVICK LTD v. TSANG WING FAI AND OTHERS

HCA 804/2019

[2020] HKCFI 3021

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

ACTION NO 804 OF 2019

____________

____________

_____________

D E C I S I O N

_____________

1.  There are 4 summonses before me to amend the order and judgment of DHCJ Blair made on 3 January 2020. The need to amend arose out of a series of mistakes and omissions on the part of the Plaintiff’s solicitors when first having the order and judgment sealed; and further omissions discovered after the first 3 summonses were filed.

2.  I am satisfied that the application for amendment falls under the “slip” rule and the proposed amendments are all to reflect the true intentions of the Court when the order and judgment were first granted.  In substance,

(1)     They are to reflect the fact that the order and judgment were granted in default of defence instead of under Order 14, rule 3;

(2)     They define what “soc” meant; and

(3)     They set out in detail the terms of the order rather than incorporating certain paragraphs in the statement of claim by reference.

3.  The Plaintiff’s solicitors acknowledged their mistakes and omissions and have undertaken to this Court that they would not charge the Plaintiff or the estate of Chan Chung Han, also known as Chan Chung Hong, deceased for costs in relation to these 4 summonses and the related supporting affirmations.

4.  On the Defendants’ side, only Mr Tsang appeared this morning shortly before 9:30 am to give a copy of his submission (made on behalf of all Defendants) to my clerk and Mr Gray.  He seeks leave to answer the 3^rd affirmation of Mr Gray dated 24 November 2020 in support of the 3^rd summons.  He did not stay for the hearing.

5.  I have read Mr Tsang’s submission.  Mr Tsang gave reasons trying to query my decision dated 17 November 2020 relating to the Plaintiff’s garnishee order applications.  This Court would not re-open that decision. 

6.  Plainly the Defendants have had notice of today’s applications.  Nothing in Mr Tsang’s submission throws doubt on the appropriateness of the 4 summonses now before me.

7.  On the basis of the undertaking in paragraph 3, I give leave to the Plaintiff to withdraw the first 3 summonses and grant an order in terms of the 4^th summons.