審訊期間修改抗辯書的許可？其他

### 案件基本資料 - 案件名稱：TO PUI KUI, the Administratrix of the estate of NG PO SUM, deceased v NG KWOK PIU and Others - 法院：高等法院上訴法庭 (Court of Appeal, CA) - 法官：林文瀚副庭長、關淑馨上訴法官、鮑晏明上訴法官 - 判決日期：2014年8月21日 ### 案情摘要 本案涉及高等法院原訟法庭一宗訴訟的上訴申請。原訟法庭法官於2012年10月24日拒絕第一、第四、第五、第七及第九被告在審訊期間修改其抗辯書的申請。被告方就此拒絕修改的決定申請上訴許可，並要求與針對原訟法庭判決的實質上訴一併處理。原告亦就原訟法庭判決中的配股問題提出上訴，並申請修改其上訴通知書及答辯人通知書。 ### 核心法律爭議 本案主要法律爭議點在於上訴法庭是否應批准被告方就原訟法庭拒絕其在審訊期間修改抗辯書的決定提出上訴。被告方認為該等修改僅為收緊法律分析，不需重新審視事實。原告方則反駁指該等修改涉及事實敏感的變更及衡平法上的禁止反言 (estoppel) 抗辯，並可能需要重新審視證據，且被告方未能及早提出修改的理由。 ### 判決理由 法庭拒絕授予被告方上訴許可，理由是原訟法庭拒絕修改抗辯書的決定屬於案件管理決定 (case management decision)，上訴方需面對非常高的門檻。法庭認為被告方未能解釋為何不早些提出修改，且所提出的修改（如變更和禁止反言）涉及事實敏感性，可能導致原告需要補充證據。此外，法庭指出，即使修改獲批，對於原告方指控偽造的「官方決議」問題，這些修改也無濟於事。對於原告方修改上訴通知書的申請，法庭考慮到雙方律師的承諾，即所有論點已在書面陳詞中提出且不會導致延期，故予以批准。 ### 引用案例與條文 本案未有特別引用 ### 裁決與命令 上訴法庭拒絕授予第一、第四、第五、第七及第九被告就修改抗辯書的決定提出上訴的許可。法庭批准原告修改其上訴通知書及答辯人通知書的申請。被告方須支付原告就上訴許可申請的訟費。原告須支付被告方就修改通知書申請的訟費。 ### 判決啟示 本判決強調了在審訊後期修改訴訟文件所面臨的高門檻，特別是對於案件管理決定。它亦重申了各方及其法律代表在案件管理中協助法庭的積極責任，包括及早確定上訴理據，以避免對上訴準備和聆訊造成干擾。遲延修改可能導致訟費命令，即使申請獲批。 --- ### 免責聲明 本摘要由人工智能自動生成，內容可能存在錯誤或遺漏，僅供參考，不構成法律意見。如需法律建議，請諮詢合資格律師。### Case Details - Case Name: TO PUI KUI, the Administratrix of the estate of NG PO SUM, deceased v NG KWOK PIU and Others - Court: Court of Appeal (CA) - Judge: Lam VP, Kwan JA, Barma JA - Date of Judgment: 21 August 2014 ### Factual Background This case concerns an application for leave to appeal against a decision of the Court of First Instance. The Deputy High Court Judge refused the 1st, 4th, 5th, 7th and 9th Defendants' application to amend their defence during the trial of High Court Action 523 of 2008. The defendants sought leave to appeal this refusal, requesting it be heard concurrently with their substantive appeal against the CFI judgment. The plaintiff also appealed against the CFI judgment regarding the Allotment Issue and applied to amend her Notice of Appeal and Respondent's Notice. ### Key Legal Issues The primary legal question was whether the Court of Appeal should grant the defendants leave to appeal the trial judge's refusal to allow them to amend their defence during the trial. The defendants argued the amendments were merely to refine their legal analysis without re-examining facts. The plaintiff contended the proposed amendments, including variation and estoppel pleas, were fact-sensitive and might require further evidence, and that the defendants provided no explanation for the late application. ### Ratio Decidendi The Court refused leave to appeal for the defendants, holding that the trial judge's decision to refuse leave to amend was a case management decision, subject to a very high threshold for appeal. The Court found the defendants failed to explain the delay in seeking amendments, and that the proposed amendments (e.g., variation and estoppel) were fact-sensitive, potentially requiring the plaintiff to supplement her case. Furthermore, the Court noted that even if granted, the amendments would not assist the defendants regarding the plaintiff's forgery allegation concerning the 'official resolution'. For the plaintiff's application to amend her notices, the Court granted leave based on counsels' assurances that all submissions were already in writing and would not cause adjournment. ### Key Precedents & Statutes None prominently cited ### Decision & Orders The Court of Appeal refused the 1st, 4th, 5th, 7th and 9th Defendants' application for leave to appeal the refusal to amend their defence. The Court granted the plaintiff's applications to amend her Notice of Appeal and Respondent's Notice. The defendants were ordered to pay the plaintiff's costs for the leave to appeal application. The plaintiff was ordered to pay the defendants' costs for the applications to amend the notices. ### Key Takeaways This judgment highlights the high threshold for appealing case management decisions, particularly late amendments to pleadings during trial. It also reiterates the positive duty of parties and their legal representatives to assist the court in case management, including timely finalization of appeal grounds to avoid disrupting preparation and hearings. Late amendments, even if granted, can lead to adverse costs orders. --- ### Disclaimer This summary is AI-generated and may contain errors or omissions. It is for reference only and does not constitute legal advice. Please consult a qualified lawyer for professional legal advice.