抗辯書能挑戰限制性契約？？申請駁回

### 案件基本資料 - 案件名稱：Guangzhou Green-Enhan Bio-Engineering Co. Ltd 及 Sun Yat-Sen University 訴 Green Power Health Products International Co. Limited 及 Chung Chee Keung - 法院：高等法院原訟法庭 (Court of First Instance, CFI) - 法官：林文瀚法官 (Hon Lam J) - 判決日期：2004年9月16日 ### 案情摘要 本案涉及被告申請修改其綜合抗辯書及反申索書，以加入一項根據香港法律挑戰限制性契約 (restrictive covenants) 有關不合理限制貿易 (unreasonable restraint of trade) 的段落。此前，被告僅根據中國法律挑戰該契約的合法性。原告反對此項修訂申請，認為該申請提出過晚，且會導致審訊進一步延誤。被告聲稱，由於法院於2004年8月21日裁定其依據中國法律提出的專家證據不可採納，故需修改抗辯書。 ### 核心法律爭議 本案的核心法律爭議是被告能否在審訊後期修改其抗辯書，以加入一項根據香港法律挑戰限制性契約的合法性，理由是該契約構成不合理限制貿易。原告方認為此申請過晚且會造成不當延誤。被告方則認為，法院先前關於中國法律專家證據的裁決，使其有必要轉而依據香港法律提出挑戰。 ### 判決理由 法官裁定，被告的修訂申請提出過晚，且其聲稱因法院先前裁決而需修改抗辯書的理由不成立。法院指出，被告從一開始就可同時根據香港法律和中國法律提出挑戰。此外，法官認為擬議的修訂是不可爭辯的，因為即使契約的某些部分可能構成不合理限制貿易，但其餘部分可被分割並強制執行。法院應用了契約分割 (severance) 的原則，認為契約中的不同限制條款是獨立的，刪除其中一項不會影響其他條款的意義或運作。因此，法院行使酌情權駁回了修訂申請。 ### 引用案例與條文 本案引用了 Scully UK Ltd v Lee [1998] IRLR 259，確立了契約分割的原則，即只有當待分割的義務與待執行義務真正獨立時才允許分割。此外，還引用了 Treitel, The Law of Contract, 11th Edn. 及 Chitty on Contracts, 29th Edn. 支持此原則。法院亦參考了 Mason v Providential Clothing & Supply Co Ltd [1913] AC 724、Attwood v Lamont [1920] 3 KB 571 及 Lucas v Mitchell [1974] 1 Ch 129，以闡明分割的條件，特別是關於是否需要額外條件的問題。 ### 裁決與命令 法院駁回了被告修改其綜合抗辯書及反申索書的申請。法院命令被告須支付原告就此申請所產生的訟費。 ### 判決啟示 本案強調了在訴訟後期提出修訂申請的難度，特別是當該申請可能導致審訊延誤並對對方造成無法以訟費彌補的損害時。判決重申了限制性契約中契約分割 (severance) 的原則，即如果契約條款是獨立的，即使部分條款可能因限制貿易而無效，其餘可執行部分仍可被保留。這對起草和解釋包含多個限制性條款的契約具有重要意義。 --- ### 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: Guangzhou Green-Enhan Bio-Engineering Co. Ltd and Sun Yat-Sen University v Green Power Health Products International Co. Limited and Chung Chee Keung - Court: Court of First Instance (CFI) - Judge: Hon Lam J - Date of Judgment: 16 September 2004 ### Factual Background This case concerns the defendants' application to amend their Consolidated Defence and Counterclaim to include a paragraph challenging restrictive covenants under Hong Kong law as being in unreasonable restraint of trade. Previously, the defendants had only challenged the legality of the covenants under PRC law. The plaintiffs opposed the amendment application, arguing it was made too late and would cause further trial delays. The defendants claimed the need for amendment arose from the court's ruling on 21 August 2004, which deemed their expert evidence on PRC law inadmissible. ### Key Legal Issues The core legal question was whether the defendants should be granted leave to amend their defence at a late stage of the trial to challenge the legality of restrictive covenants under Hong Kong law on the grounds of unreasonable restraint of trade. The plaintiffs argued against the amendment due to lateness and potential delay. The defendants contended that the court's prior ruling on PRC law expert evidence necessitated this shift to Hong Kong law. ### Ratio Decidendi The judge ruled that the defendants' application for amendment was made too late, and their justification based on the court's prior ruling was unfounded. The court noted that the defendants could have challenged the covenants under both Hong Kong and PRC law from the outset. Furthermore, the judge found the proposed amendment unarguable because, even if parts of the covenant were in unreasonable restraint of trade, the remaining parts were severable and enforceable. The court applied the principle of severance, holding that the different restrictive prohibitions within the covenant were independent, and deleting one would not affect the meaning or operation of the others. The court thus exercised its discretion to dismiss the application. ### Key Precedents & Statutes The case cited Scully UK Ltd v Lee [1998] IRLR 259, establishing the principle that severance is permissible only when the obligation to be severed is truly separate from that to be enforced. Treitel, The Law of Contract, 11th Edn. and Chitty on Contracts, 29th Edn. were also referenced for this principle. The court further considered Mason v Providential Clothing & Supply Co Ltd [1913] AC 724, Attwood v Lamont [1920] 3 KB 571, and Lucas v Mitchell [1974] 1 Ch 129 to clarify the conditions for severance, particularly regarding any additional requirements. ### Decision & Orders The court dismissed the defendants' application for leave to amend their Consolidated Defence and Counterclaim. The defendants were ordered to bear the plaintiffs' costs for this application. ### Key Takeaways This judgment highlights the difficulties in obtaining leave to amend pleadings at a late stage of litigation, especially when such amendments could cause trial delays and prejudice to the opposing party that cannot be compensated by costs. It reaffirms the principle of severance in restrictive covenants: if clauses are independent, enforceable parts can be upheld even if other parts are void for restraint of trade. This has significant implications for drafting and interpreting contracts with multiple restrictive provisions. --- ### 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.