WEALTHY VICTOR LTD AND ANOTHER v. ACE COSMOS FINANCE LTD

HCA 1910/2007

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

ACTION NO. 1910 OF 2007

____________

BETWEEN

____________

________________

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.