CHU MAN CHUN v. THE HONG KONG JOCKEY CLUB AND OTHERS

DCPI 292/2012

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

PERSONAL INJURIES ACTION NO 292 OF 2012

--------------------

-----------------------------

D E C I S I O N

-----------------------------

1. This is the plaintiff’s application for leave to amend his amended statement of claim. The application is opposed by the 1^st and 2^nd defendants. The 3^rd defendant has not taken any part in these proceedings and judgment has already been entered against him.

2. The general principles for the grant of leave are not disputed:  All amendments for the purpose of determining the real question in controversy between the parties ought to be made.[1]

3. The plaintiff’s solicitor has taken me through the proposed amendments and I am satisfied that they arose out of the evidence already filed by the parties.  It is true that the exact allegations may be new, but they are based on the evidence already filed.  In my view, what these amendments seek to achieve is to put the defendants on notice of these new grounds of negligence that the plaintiff is minded to advance at trial.  In that regard, they are aimed at enabling the real question in controversy to be determined fully at trial.

4. The 1^st and 2^nd defendants oppose the application principally on the ground of delay.  The 2^nd defendant further cites the ruling dated 5 July 2013 in HCPI 153/2012 and complains that they will be prejudiced as their witness(es) may not recollect what happened 5 years ago.

5. This action has been set down for trial and the trial is scheduled to take place in early April.  There are still 2 months to go.  Having regard to the scope of the proposed amendments and the evidence already filed, I take the view that the amendments will not have the effect of affecting the trial dates.  The defendants of course will have to deal with these new allegations by means of pleadings and evidence, but they are not starting from scratch.  They are building on their case already pleaded and the evidence already filed.  As the new allegations are quite well articulated in the pleadings and confined in scope, I am confident that the defendants still have sufficient time to prepare further if necessary to meet these new allegations.

6. I therefore make an order in terms of the summons as amended.  Costs of this application be to the defendants in any event to be taxed if not agreed.